THE TRANSLATIONS OF BEOWULF

The unique manuscript of the Beowulf is preserved in the Cottonian Library of the British Museum. It is contained in the folio designated Cotton Vitellius A. xv, where it occurs ninth in order, filling the folios numbered 129a to 198b, inclusive.

The first recorded notice of the MS. is to be found in Wanley’s Catalog of Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts (Oxford, 1705), Volume III of Hickes’s Thesaurus. The poem is thus described:—

The first nineteen lines follow, transcribed with a few errors.

Lines 53–73, transcribed with a few errors.

No further notice was taken of the MS. until 1786, when Thorkelin1 made two transcripts of it.

In 1731 there occurred a disastrous fire which destroyed a number of the Cottonian MSS. The Beowulf MS. suffered at this time, its edges being scorched and its pages shriveled. As a result, the edges have chipped 8 away, and some of the readings have been lost. It does not appear, however, that these losses are of so great importance as the remarks of some prominent Old English scholars might lead us to suspect. Their remarks give the impression that the injury which the MS. received in the fire accounts for practically all of the illegible lines. That this is not so may be seen by comparing the Wanley transcript with the Zupitza Autotypes. Writing in 1705, before the Cotton fire, Wanley found two illegible words at line 15—illegible because of fading and rubbing. Of exactly the same nature appear to be the injuries at lines 2220 ff., the celebrated passage which is nearly, if not quite, unintelligible. It would therefore be a safe assumption that such injuries as these happened to the MS. before it became a part of the volume, Vitellius A. xv. The injuries due to scorching and burning are seldom of the first importance.

This point is worth noting. Each succeeding scholar who transcribed the MS., eager to recommend his work, dwelt upon the rapid deterioration of the parchment, and the reliability of his own readings as exact reproductions of what he himself had seen in the MS. before it reached its present ruinous state. The result of this was that the emendations of the editor were sometimes accepted by scholars and translators as the authoritative readings of the MS., when in reality they were nothing but gratuitous additions. This is especially true of Thorpe2, and the false readings which he introduced were never got rid of until the Zupitza Autotypes brought to light the sins of the various editors of the poem. These statements regarding text and MS. will be developed in the following sections of the paper3.

The History of the Manners, Landed Property, Government, Laws, Poetry, Literature, Religion, and Language of the Anglo-Saxons. By Sharon Turner, F.A.S. London: Longman, Hurst, Rees, & Orme, 1805.

Being Volume IV of the History of the Anglo-Saxons from their earliest appearance above the Elbe, etc. London, 1799–1805. 8^o, pp. 398–408.

Second Edition, corrected and enlarged. London: Longman, Hurst, Rees, & Orme, 1807. 2 vols., 4^o. Beowulf described, Vol. II, pp. 294–303.

Third Edition. London, 1820.

Fourth Edition. London, 1823.

Fifth Edition. (1827?)

Sixth Edition. London, 1836.

Seventh Edition. London, 1852.

Reprints: Paris, 1840; Philadelphia, 1841.

Translation of Extracts from the first two Parts.

A part of this may be stated in the words of the author:—

The statement that the poem had remained untouched and unnoticed is not strictly true. The public had not yet received any detailed information regarding it; but Wanley1 had mentioned the Beowulf in his catalog, and Thorkelin had already made two transcripts of the poem, and was at work upon an edition. Turner, however, deserves full credit for first calling the attention of the English people to the importance of the poem.

In the third edition, of which the author speaks, many improvements were introduced into the digest of the story and some improvements into the text of the translations. Many of these were gleaned from the editio princeps of Thorkelin2. The story is now told with a fair degree of accuracy, although many serious errors remain: e.g. the author did not distinguish the correct interpretation of the swimming-match, an extract of which is given below. The translations are about as faulty as ever, as may be seen by comparing the two extracts. In the first edition only the first part of the poem is treated; in the third, selections from the second part are added.

No further changes were made in later editions of the History.

Detailed information regarding differences between the first three editions may be found below.

Sharon Turner (1768–1847) was from early youth devoted to the study of Anglo-Saxon history, literature, and antiquities. His knowledge was largely derived from the examination of original documents in the British Museum3. But the very wealth of the new material which he found for the study of the literature kept him from making a thorough study of it. It is to be remembered 11 that at this time but little was known of the peculiar nature of the Old English poetry. Turner gives fair discussions of the works of Bede and Ælfric, but he knows practically nothing of the poetry. With the so-called Paraphrase of Cædmon he is, of course, familiar; but his knowledge of Beowulf and Judith is derived from the unique, and at that time (1805) unpublished, MS., Cotton Vitellius A. xv. Of the contents of the Exeter Book he knew nothing. The Vercelli Book had not yet been discovered. The materials at hand for his study were a faulty edition of Cædmon and an insufficient dictionary. The author, whose interest was of course primarily in history, was not familiar with the linguistic work of the day. It is, therefore, not surprising that his work was not of the best quality.

First edition: 18–40; 47–83a; 199b-279; 320–324; 333–336; 499–517a. In the second edition are added: 1–17; 41–46; 83b-114; 189–199a; 387–497; 522–528. In the third edition are added: 529–531; 535–558; 607–646; 671–674; 720–738; 991–996; 1013–1042; 1060b-1068a; 1159b-1165a; 1168b-1180a; 1215b-1226a; 1240b-1246a; and a few other detached lines.

[Dots indicate the position of the quotations.]

‘It begins with a proemium, which introduces its hero Beowulf to our notice. . . . The poet then states the embarkation of Beowulf and his partisans. . . .’ Turner interprets the prolog as the description of the embarkation of Beowulf on a piratical expedition. The accession of Hrothgar to the throne of the Danes is then described, and the account of his ‘homicide’ is given. This remarkable mistake was caused by the transposition of a sheet from a later part of the poem—the fight with Grendel—to the first section of the poem. The sailing of Beowulf and the arrival in the Danish land are then given. Turner continues: ‘The sixth section exhibits Hrothgar’s conversation with his nobles, and Beowulf’s introduction and address to him. The seventh section opens with Hrothgar’s answer to him, who endeavours to explain the circumstance of the provocation. In the eighth section a new speaker appears, who is introduced, as almost all the personages in the poem are mentioned, with some account of his parentage and character.’ Then follows the extract given below:

After this extract, Turner continues:— ‘It would occupy too much room in the present volume to give a further account of this interesting poem, which well deserves to be submitted to the public, with a translation and with ample notes. There are forty-two sections of it in the Cotton MS., and it ends there imperfectly. It is perhaps the oldest poem of an epic form in the vernacular language of Europe which now exists.’

In the second edition the following lines were added:—

‘After Hunferthe, another character is introduced:

‘Hunferth, “the son of Ecglaf, who sat at the feet of the lord of the Scyldingi.” He is described as jealous of Beowulf’s reputation, and as refusing to any man more celebrity than himself. He is represented as taunting Beowulf on his exploits as a sea-king or vikingr.

Detailed criticism of the extracts is unnecessary. They are, of course, utterly useless to-day. Sufficient general criticism of the work is found in the preceding sections devoted to a discussion of the author and his knowledge of Old English and of the Beowulf.

In the third edition the author presents some criticisms of Thorkelin’s text; but his own work is quite as faulty as the Icelander’s, and his ‘corrections’ are often misleading.

Turner is to be censured for allowing an account of Beowulf so full of inaccuracy to be reprinted year after year with no attempt at its improvement or even a warning to the public that it had been superseded by later and more scholarly studies.

De | Danorum | Rebus Gestis Secul III & IV | Poema Danicum Dialecto Anglosaxonica. | Ex Bibliotheca Cottoniana Musaei Britannici | edidit versione lat. et indicibus auxit | Grim. Johnson Thorkelin. Dr J V. | Havniæ 16 Typis Th. E. Rangel. | MDCCXV. 4to, pp. xx, 299, appendix 5.

First Edition. First Translation (Latin).

The words of Wanley cited above1 did not pass unnoticed in Denmark. Thorkelin tells us in his introduction that it had long been the desire of Suhm2, Langebeck, Magnusen, and other Danish scholars to inspect the MS. in the British Museum. The following is Thorkelin’s account of his editorial labors:—

Thorkelin thus obtained two copies of the poem, one made with his own hand, the other by a scribe ignorant of Old English. These transcripts (still preserved in Copenhagen) formed the basis for Thorkelin’s edition. The account of his studies continues:—

Just at this time, unfortunately, Copenhagen was stormed by the English fleet, and Thorkelin’s text and notes were 17 burned with his library. But the transcripts were saved. Thorkelin renewed his labors under the patronage of Bülow, and at length published in 1815.

Grimus Johnssen Thorkelin (or Thorkelsson), 1752–1829, is remembered as a scholar in early Germanic history. He had little beside this knowledge and his general acquaintance with Old Germanic languages to recommend him as an editor of the Beowulf. Grundtvig said that the transcript of the Beowulf must have been the work of one wholly ignorant of Old English3. Thorkelin knew nothing of the peculiar style of Old English poetry; he could recognize neither kenning, metaphor, nor compound. He was not even fitted to undertake the transcription of the text, as the following section will make evident.

We have seen how Sharon Turner4 could describe the Beowulf. Thorkelin seems to have been little better fitted to understand the poem, to say nothing of editing it. He failed to interpret some of the simplest events of the story. He did not identify Scyld, nor understand that his body was given up to the sea, but thought that King Beowulf ‘expeditionem suscipit navalem.’ He failed to identify Breca, and thought that Hunferth was describing some piratical voyage of Beowulf’s. He makes Beowulf reply that ‘piratas ubique persequitur et fudit,’ and ‘Finlandiæ arma infert5.’ He regarded Beowulf as the hero of the Sigemund episode. He quite misapprehended the Finn episode, ‘Fin, rex Frisionum, contra Danis pugnat; vincitur; fœdus cum Hrodgaro pangit; fidem frangit; pugnans cadit6.’ He regards Beowulf and a son of Hunferth as participating 18 in that expedition. He failed to identify Hnæf, or Hengest, or Hrothulf, &c.

In order to show how corrupt the text is, I append a collation of the above passage with the MS. It may be added that the lines are among the simplest in the poem, and call for no emendation. In passages that present any real difficulty, Thorkelin is, if possible, even more at fault.

In the composition of his text Thorkelin made all the errors known to scribes and editors. He misread words and letters of the MS., although he had two transcripts. He dropped letters, combinations of letters, and even whole words. He joined words that had no relation to each other; he broke words into two or even three parts; he ignored compounds. He produced many forms the like of which cannot be found in Old English. One further example of his great carelessness may be given. The first line of the poem, which is written in large capitals in the MS.:—

Hwæt we Gardena. . . .

Thorkelin perversely transcribed:—

Hwæt wegar Dena. . . .

and for this combination of syllables he chose the translation:—

Quomodo Danorum.

There is, of course, no such word as ‘wegar’ in Old English.

Of the necessity of punctuation Thorkelin seems to have been serenely unconscious; he did not even follow the guides afforded by the MS. Had he done so, he would have saved himself many humiliating errors. For example, in the text given above, to have noticed the periods mentioned in the collation would have been to avoid two glaring instances of ‘running-in.’

But, in spite of the wretched text, it remained for the translation to discover the depths of Thorkelin’s ignorance. It will be seen by reading the extract given from the 21 translation that he did not even perceive that two men were swimming in the sea. It is to be remembered, too, that his error of the ‘piratical expedition’ is carried on for sixty lines—certainly a triumph of ingenuity. It is useless to attempt a classification of the errors in this version. In the words of Kemble:—

The book was of value only in that it brought Beowulf to the attention of scholars. The edition was used by Turner, Grundtvig, and Conybeare. I have found the following notices of the book, which will show how it was received by the scholarly world.

*Bjowulf’s Draape. Et Gothisk Helte-digt fra forrige Aar-tusinde af Angel-Saxisk paa Danske Riim ved Nic. Fred. Sev. Grundtvig, Præst. Kjøbenhavn, 18201. 8^o, pp. lxxiv, 325.

Bjovulvs-Draapen, et Høinordisk Heltedigt, fra Anguls-Tungen fordansket af Nik. Fred. Sev. Grundtvig. Anden forbedrede Udgave. Kiøbenhavn. Karl Schønbergs Forlag. 1865. 8^o, pp. xvi, 224.

First Danish Translation. Ballad Measures.

Nicolas Frederic Severin Grundtvig (1783–1872) was especially noted as a student of Old Germanic literature. He began his career in 1806 by his studies on the Edda. This was followed by a book on Northern Mythology (1810), and by various creative works in verse and prose, the subjects of which were usually drawn from old Danish history. An account of his labors on the Beowulf will be found in the following section. His interest in Old English literature continued through his long life, and he was well and favorably known among the scholars of his day.

In Beowulfs Beorh (Copenhagen, 1861), Grundtvig tells the story of his early translation of the poem. He had always had a passionate interest in Danish antiquities, and was much excited upon the appearance of Thorkelin’s text2. At that time, however, he knew no Old English, 23 and his friend Rask, the famous scholar in Germanic philology, being absent from Denmark, he resolved to do what he could with the poem himself. He began by committing the entire poem to memory. In this way he detected many of the outlines which had been obscured by Thorkelin. The results of this study he published in the Copenhagen Sketch-Book (Kjøbenhavns Skilderie), 1815. When Thorkelin saw the studies he was furious, and pronounced the discoveries mere fabrications.

But Rask, upon his return, thought differently, and proposed to Grundtvig that they edit the poem together. They began the work, but when they reached line 925 the edition was interrupted by Rask’s journey into Russia and Asia. With the help of Rask’s Anglo-Saxon Grammar (Stockholm, 1817), Grundtvig proceeded with his translation. By the munificence of Bülow, who had also given assistance to Thorkelin, Grundtvig was relieved of the expense of publication.

Grundtvig was the first to understand the story of Beowulf. With no other materials than Thorkelin’s edition of the text and his own knowledge of Germanic mythology, he discovered the sea-burial of King Scyld, the swimming-match, and the Finn episode. He identified Breca, Hnæf, Hengest, King Hrethel, and other characters whose names Thorkelin had filched from them.

Rask borrowed the original transcripts which Thorkelin had brought from the British Museum, and copied and corrected them. This was the basis of Grundtvig’s translation.

The principal difference is in the introduction; but of the nature and extent of changes in the second edition I can give no notion. All my information respecting the first volume is derived from transcripts of certain parts of it sent me from the British Museum. These copies do not reveal any differences between the two translations.

We begin by quoting the author’s words:—

In the introduction to his text of 1861, Grundtvig speaks of his theory of translation, saying that he gave, as it were, new clothes, new money, and new language to the poor old Seven Sleepers, so that they could associate freely with moderns. He believed that it was necessary to put the poem into a form that would seem natural and 25 attractive to the readers of the day. In so doing he departed from the letter of the law, and rewrote the poem according to his own ideas.

In the second edition the author states that he hopes the poem will prove acceptable as a reading-book for schools. Its value as a text-book in patriotism is also alluded to.

Trætten med Hunferd Drost og Trøsten derover.

The poem departs so far from the text of Beowulf that any discussion of its accuracy would be out of place. As has been shown by the section on the nature of the translation, the author had no intention of being true to the letter of the text. Grundtvig’s scholarship has been discussed above.

The translation may properly be called nothing more than a paraphrase. Whole sentences are introduced that have no connection with the original text. Throughout the translation is evident the robust, but not always agreeable, personality of the translator. In his preface5 Grundtvig remarked that he put nothing into his poem that was not historically and poetically true to the original. The statement can only be regarded as an unfortunate exaggeration. Grundtvig’s style cannot be called even a faint reflection of the Beowulf style. He has popularized the story, and he has cheapened it. There is no warrant in the original for the coarse invective of the extract that has just been cited. In the Old English, Hunferth taunts Beowulf, but he never forgets that his rival is ‘doughty in battle’ (l. 526). Beowulf is always worthy of his respect. In Grundtvig, the taunting degenerates into a scurrilous tirade. Hunferth calls Beowulf a ‘mudscow’; Breca and Beowulf swim like two ‘dead herrings.’ In like manner the character of Hunferth is cheapened. In Beowulf he is a jealous courtier, but he is always heroic. In Grundtvig he is merely a contemptible braggart, ‘with his nose high in air,’ who will not allow himself to be ‘thrown to the rubbish heap.’

The same false manner is retained throughout the poem. In many places it reads well—it is often an excellent 28 story. But it can lay no claim to historic or poetic fidelity to the Beowulf.

The book fell dead from the press. Grundtvig himself tells us that it was hardly read outside his own house6. Thirty years later he learned that the book had never reached the Royal Library at Stockholm. A copy made its way to the British Museum, but it was the one which Grundtvig himself carried thither in 1829. This was doubtless the copy that was read and criticized by Thorpe and Wackerbarth. Both of these scholars spoke of its extreme freedom, but commended its readableness.

Illustrations of Anglo-Saxon Poetry. By John Josias Conybeare, M.A., &c. Edited, together with additional notes, introductory notices, &c., by his brother, William Daniel Conybeare, M.A., &c. London: printed for Harding and Lepard, Pall Mall East, 1826. 8^o, pp. (viii), xcvi, 287.

Anglo-Saxon Poem concerning the Exploits of Beowulf the Dane, pp. 30–167.

Translation of extracts into English blank verse, with the original text of the extracts, and a literal translation of them into Latin prose.

The volume had its origin in the Terminal Lectures which the author gave as Professor of Anglo-Saxon and 29 Poetry at Oxford from 1809 to 18121. We know from an autobiographical note printed in the Introduction2 that the Beowulf was finished in October, 1820. But the book did not appear until two years after the author’s death, and the material which it contains is of a slightly earlier date than the title-page would seem to indicate—e.g. the volume really antedates the third edition of Turner’s History discussed above3.

Conybeare did not edit the entire poem, and apparently never had any intention of so doing. The selections which he translates are based on Thorkelin’s text. He revises this text, however, in making his translations, and even incorporates a collation of Thorkelin’s text with the MS. (pp. 137–55). This collation, though not complete or accurate, was serviceable, and kept Conybeare from falling into some of the errors that the Icelander had made. He distinguished by an asterisk the MS. readings which were of material importance in giving the sense of a passage, and, in fact, constructed for himself a text that was practically new.

How much Conybeare improved the text may be seen by comparing his text and Latin translation with those of Thorkelin. The first six lines of the Prolog follow:—

It will be seen that in these lines Conybeare has at almost every point the advantage over Thorkelin, and is indeed very nearly in accord with modern texts and translations. But the poem yet awaited a complete understanding, for Conybeare could say: ‘The Introduction is occupied by the praises of Scefing . . . and of his son and successor Beowulf. The embarkation of the former on a piratical expedition is then detailed at some length. In this expedition (if I rightly understand the text) himself and his companions were taken or lost at sea’ (p. 35). And, in general, he misses the same points of the story as Thorkelin, although he craftily refrains from translating the obscurer passages.

Conybeare apparently knew nothing of the critical work of Grundtvig. This is not surprising when we remember that Kjøbenhavns Skilderie was probably not known outside 31 of Denmark4. Moreover, it is to be remembered that Conybeare’s extracts from the Beowulf are not really later than Grundtvig’s translation, since they were made in the same year, 18205.

From the words quoted above with respect to the collation, it will be seen that Conybeare in no way regarded his book as a contribution to Beowulf scholarship. As professor at Oxford, he attempted a literary presentation of the most beautiful parts of the old poetry. His extracts are, in general, nothing more than free paraphrases. Wishing to popularize the Beowulf, he used as a medium of translation a peculiarly stilted kind of blank verse. He dressed the poem out in elegant phrases in order to hide the barrenness of the original. Manifestly he feared the roughness, the remoteness of the poem in its natural state. He feared to offend a nation of readers reveling in the medievalism of Scott and Byron. A literal Latin translation was inserted to appease the scholar.

‘At a single stroke he (Beowulf) cut through the “ringed bones” of her neck, and

Page 58; Beo., 1565–75.

Pages 113, 114.

The English version is scarcely more than a paraphrase, as may easily be seen by comparing it with the literal translation into Latin. But even as a paraphrase it is unsatisfactory. By way of general criticism it may be said that, while it attains a kind of dignity, it is not the dignity of Beowulf, for it is self-conscious. Like Beowulf it is elaborate, but it is the elaboration of art rather than of feeling. Moreover, it is freighted with Miltonic phrase, and constantly suggests the Miltonic movement. The trick of verse in line 3 is quite too exquisite for Beowulf. The whole piece has a straining after pomp and majesty that is utterly foreign to the simple, often baldly simple, ideas and phrases of the original. Nearly every adjective is supplied by the translator: in Old English the ‘sword’ is ‘bloody,’ in Conybeare the ‘gallant sword drops fast a gory dew’; the cave becomes a mansion; the ‘floor’ is ‘dust’—dust in an ocean cave!—‘heaven’s candle’ becomes ‘heaven’s glorious torch.’ The poem is tricked out almost beyond recognition. Beowulf assumes the ‘grand manner,’ and paces ‘the Grendel’s hold’ like one of the strutting emperors of Dryden’s elaborate drama.

The Anglo-Saxon poems of Beowulf, the Traveller’s Song, and the Battle at Finnes-burh. Edited together with a glossary of the more difficult words, and an historical preface, by John M. Kemble, Esq., M.A. London: William Pickering, 1833. 8^o, pp. xxii, 260. Edition limited to 100 copies.

The Anglo-Saxon Poems of Beowulf, the Traveller’s Song, and the Battle of Finnes-burh. Edited by John M. Kemble, Esq., M.A., of Trinity College, Cambridge. Second edition. London: William Pickering, 1835. 8^o, pp. xxxii, 263.

A Translation of the Anglo-Saxon Poem of Beowulf, with a copious glossary, preface, and philological notes, by John M. Kemble, Esq., M.A., of Trinity College, Cambridge. London: William Pickering, 1837. 8^o, pp. lv, 127, appendix, 179.

First English Translation. Prose.

A sufficient account of this volume is given by Professor Earle, who says of it:—

But whatever may be said of the text of 1833, there is nothing but praise for the edition of 1835. In this book 34 the poem first had the advantage of a modern scholarly treatment, and for the first time the text of the MS. was correctly transcribed. It received its first punctuation. For the first time it was properly divided into half-lines, with attention to alliteration. The text was freely emended, but the suggested readings were placed in the footnotes, in order not to impair the value of the text as a reproduction of the MS. The necessity for this was made evident by Kemble himself:—

With this wholesome respect for the tradition of the MS., it is not strange that Kemble’s carefully chosen emendations should stand to-day as of high critical value, and that many of them are retained in modern editions of the text1. When we compare Kemble’s book with Thorkelin’s, the advance is seen to be little less than astonishing. Thorkelin’s emendations were worse than useless.

Kemble had a full acquaintance with the new science of comparative philology which was developing in Germany under Jakob Grimm. He had corresponded, and later studied, with Grimm, and, according to William Hunt, was the ‘recognised exponent’ of his investigations2. It is to 35 Grimm that Kemble dedicates his volumes, and to him that he repeatedly acknowledges his indebtedness. Thus Kemble brought to the study of the poem not only a knowledge of the Old English poetry and prose, but acquaintance with Old Norse, Gothic, Old High German, and Old Saxon. It may sufficiently illustrate his scholarly method to instance examples of his treatment of the unique words in Beowulf. Take, e.g., the word hose in line 924. This word does not appear elsewhere in Old English; it does not appear in Lye’s Dictionary, the only dictionary that was at Kemble’s disposal. Upon this word Kemble brought to bear his knowledge of the Germanic tongues, and by citing Goth. hansa, OHG. hansa, &c., derived the meaning turma—a process in which he is supported by a modern authority like Kluge. The study of compounds also first began with Kemble. He collected and compared the compounds in heaðo.. Thus he laid the foundation of all modern studies on the Old English compound.

In the 1835 volume twenty-three words were illustrated in the above way. But it remained for the 1837 volume to present a complete glossary of the poem, containing also important poetic words not in Beowulf. By reason of its completeness and comparative work, it remained the standard commentary on the Old English poetic vocabulary until the appearance of Grein’s Sprachschatz3.

Like his edition of the text, Kemble’s translation is quite independent of any preceding book; like his edition of the text, its aim was faithfulness to the original. He adheres scrupulously to the text, save where the original 36 is unintelligible. The translation was designed to be used together with the glossary as a part of the apparatus for interpreting the poem. He therefore made it strictly literal.

Postscript to the Preface, p. 1.

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 inaccurate7. 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 Thorpe8. In spite of the fact that this is a literal translation, it sometimes attains strength and beauty by reason of its very simplicity.

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. 8^o, pp. 191.

First German Translation. Imitative measures.

Ernst Moritz Ludwig Ettmüller (1802–77), at the time of the publication of this book, was professor of the German 38 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.

Ettmüller gives full expression to his theories and aims:—

The translation is founded on Kemble’s text of 18351, 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.

In his translation Ettmüller followed in the steps of Kemble2, 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 Denmark3. 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 41 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.

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. Grein4, the next German scholar, took his inspiration from Kemble5 and Thorpe6 rather than from Ettmüller.

Beo-wulf og Scopes Widsið, to angelsaxiske Digte, med Oversættelse og oplysende Anmærkninger udgivne af Frederik Schaldemose. Kjøbenhavn, 1847.

Anden Udgave, Kjøbenhavn, 1851. 8^o, pp. ii, 188.

Second Danish Translation.

In this book the Old English text and the Danish translation were printed in parallel columns. The text, which was taken literally from Kemble1, need not detain us here. No mention is made of the work of Leo2, Ettmüller3, or of the 1837 volume of Kemble, although 42 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 translation4 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.

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 Thorkelin5, 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.

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 reiterated6 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.

It is a tribute to the Danish interest in Beowulf that Schaldemose’s volume soon passed into a second edition. 45 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.

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. 8^o, pp. xlvi, 159.

Second English Translation. Ballad Measures.

In the introduction Wackerbarth gives a full account of the history of the book:—

Wackerbarth’s translation is not to be considered as a rival of Kemble’s1—the author did not wish it to be 48 so considered. Kemble addressed the world of scholars; Wackerbarth the world of readers. Wackerbarth rather resembles Conybeare2 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 49 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.

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. 12^o, pp. xxxiv, 330.

Third English Translation. Short Lines.

Considering the amount of time that had elapsed between this and the edition of Kemble1, 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, 51 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:—

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 20003.

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 53 thing is true of Fǽr in line 19, and Grendles 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.

This being a strictly literal translation, the reader is referred to the sections on the text for a valuation and criticism. It is a question whether there was need for another literal rendering in England at this time. Kemble’s translation was not yet out of date, and with Thorpe’s new glossary the student had a sufficient apparatus for the interpretation of the poem.

Some German scholars have discovered that the short lines in which Thorpe’s translation is couched are imitative of the Old English measure. I am unable to agree with them. Probably any short-line translation would ipso facto assume a choppiness not dissimilar to the Old English, and probably plenty of lines could be discovered which correspond well enough to the ‘five types,’ but the agreement seems purely fortuitous. It is quite unlikely that Thorpe intended any imitation.

The influence of this edition has been considerable. It was the principal authority used by Grein4 and Heyne5 in constructing their texts. Thus its influence was felt in all texts down to the publication of the Zupitza Autotypes (1882). Thomas Arnold6 copied the text almost word for word.

Dichtungen der Angelsachsen, stabreimend übersetzt von C. W. M. Grein. Erster Band. Göttingen: Georg H. Wigand, 1857. 8^o, Beowulf, pp. 223–308. Zweite (Titel-) Auflage, 1863.

Beowulf. Stabreimend übersetzt von Professor Dr. C. W. M. Grein. Zweite Auflage. Kassel: Georg H. Wigand, 1883. 8^o, pp. 90.

Second German Translation. Imitative Measures.

Christian Wilhelm Michael Grein1 (1825–77) was eminently well fitted for the editing and translating of Old English poetry. He possessed a natural aptitude for the study of Germanic Philology, and had the advantage of studying with an excellent professor, Franz Eduard Christoph Dietrich (1810–83), in the University at Marburg. As early as 1854 he began his labors as a translator of Old English poetry with a version of the Phoenix, ‘Der Vogel Phoenix: ein angelsächsisches Gedicht, stabreimend übersetzt,’ 56 Rinteln, 1854. In the same year he printed a translation of the Heliand.

In 1855 he assumed the position of Praktikant at the Kassel Landesbibliothek. Here he was able to devote a large part of his attention to the study of Old English, acquiring a familiarity with the poetry of that tongue which it has seldom been the fortune of a scholar to surpass. He formed the design of editing and translating the entire body of Old English poetry and appending to it a complete glossary which should not only give the meanings of the words, but instance every occurrence of the word. This design he carried out between the years 1857 and 1864.

The text of Beowulf is found in Grein’s Bibliothek der angelsächsichen Poesie, Erster Band, Göttingen, 1857, where it occupies pp. 255–341. A second edition, several times re-edited, is Beovulf, nebst den Fragmenten Finnsburg und Waldere, Kassel und Göttingen, 1867.

Grein never saw the MS. of the poem2. He based his text on a collation of all the preceding editions. This was unfortunate, because, had Grein seen the MS., he would doubtless have hastened to make a correct transcription of it. As it was, his edition necessarily shares some of the faults of its predecessors, since the text had never yet been accurately transcribed. A simple illustration of this defect may be seen by examining line 2218 of the text, where Grein reads,

be fire, fyrena hyrde,

following Thorpe3. As has been pointed out, this is an impossible reading, and one for which there is no justification in the MS. Thorpe, however, had presented it as the MS. reading, and Grein could not but copy it.

Like Kemble, Grein had a supreme respect for the readings of the MS., and he announced his intention of following this reading wherever possible:—

This was wise. Since the days of Kemble, emendation had become unnecessarily frequent. We have seen in what a light-hearted way Thorpe spoke of the ‘blunders of the scribes,’ and how careless he was in the preparation of his text. The dialect had not yet received proper attention, and the copyists were blamed for errors that they never made.

Grein was extremely clever in filling the lacunae of the MS., and his conjectural emendations are frequently retained by later editors.

Still another improvement which he introduced was the full punctuation of the text; this was superior to any that had preceded it. In previous editions defective punctuation had obscured the sense of the lines; here it was made a factor in their interpretation.

Grein’s theory of translation is sufficiently expressed in the Vorrede to the Dichtungen:—

The second edition of the translation (see supra, p. 65) was edited from Grein’s ‘Handexemplar’ of the Dichtungen after his death by Professor Wülker, who has also re-edited the text of the Bibliothek. The differences are seldom more than verbal, and are largely in the early parts of the poem. The second edition is, of course, superior.

The translation is a literal line-for-line version. Its superiority to its predecessors is, therefore, one with the superiority of the text on which it is founded.

The translation became at once the standard commentary on Beowulf, and this position it retained for many years. It is still the standard literal translation in Germany, none of the later versions having equaled it in point of accuracy.

Beowulf. Das älteste deutsche Epos. Uebersetzt und erläutert von Dr. Karl Simrock. Stuttgart und Augsburg: J. G. Cotta’scher Verlag, 1859. 8^o, pp. iv, 203.

Third German Translation. Imitative Measures.

Dr. Karl Simrock (1802–1876) brought to the translation of Beowulf the thorough knowledge of a scholar, 60 the fine feeling and technique of a poet, and an enviable reputation as a translator of Old German poetry. At the time when he made his translation of Beowulf, he was Professor of Old German Literature at Bonn, whither he had been called because of his contributions to the study of Old German mythology. His title to remembrance rests, however, on his metrical rendering of the Nibelungenlied, a work which, in 1892, had passed into its fifty-second edition. As an original poet, Simrock is remembered for his Wieland der Schmied (1835), and Gedichte (1844).

Simrock wished to do for Beowulf what he had done for the Nibelungenlied, Walther von der Vogelweide, and Der arme Heinrich. He objected to the too literal work of Ettmüller1 and Grein2, hoping in his own work to make the poem readable and to dispense with a ‘note for every third word’:

In this ambition he was justified by his success as a translator of Old German poetry.

The diction of the version is, on the whole, characterized by simplicity and ease. Yet the author, like many another translator of Old English, tries to give his style an archaic tinge by preserving the compound forms characteristic of that language, such as Lustholz, Aelgelage, Kampfrunen, a fault that Ettmüller had carried to excess. These forms he sometimes used to the exclusion of simpler, or even 61 more literal, words. The nature of the German language, however, keeps these from being as repulsive as they are in English, but they are sufficiently strange to mystify and annoy the reader.

The feature of his translation for which Simrock was most concerned was the measure:

He also preserved alliteration, believing that a fondness for that poetic adornment may be easily acquired, and that it is by no means inconsistent with the genius of modern tongues.

The notes to the translation contain discussions of the episodes and of the mythological personages of the poem. There is a discussion of the poetic worth of Beowulf, and an argument for the German origin of the poem. But the translation is the raison d’être of the volume, and other parts are strictly subordinated to it. The Finnsburg fragment is inserted at the end of section 16. As the author does not wish to disturb the order of Beowulf, he is obliged to place the poem at the end of the Finnsburg episode (in Beowulf), a very ill-chosen position, where it can only confuse the general reader more than the obscure lines to which it is related. This practice of inserting the Finnsburg fragment, lately revived by Hoffmann3, has been generally repudiated.

The text followed is Grein’s (1857)4. The translator acknowledges his indebtedness to the versions of Ettmüller and Grein.

Simrock’s translation is commendable for its faithfulness. It is, moreover, a simple and readable version, though in 63 these respects it is not equal to Heyne’s rendering which was to follow it; but it was easily superior to Grein’s. Yet, in spite of this, the book is not well known among German translations, and has never passed into a second edition. This is surprising when we consider the success of Simrock’s previous translations. The partial failure is accounted for by two facts: (1) Simrock’s reputation as a scholar was not equal to that of Grein or Heyne, nor had he the advantage of editing the text; (2) the measure which the translation employed has never been popular among readers. No German translation in imitative measures, with the single exception of Grein’s (which has made its appeal as a scholarly work and not as a piece of literature), has ever passed into a second edition; while versions couched in iambic lines or Nibelungen meters have been reprinted.

Beowulf. Angelsächsisches Heldengedicht übersetzt von Moritz Heyne. Paderborn: Druck und Verlag von Ferd. Schöningh, 1863. 12^o, pp. viii, 127.

Zweite Auflage. Paderborn: Schöningh, 1898. 8^o, pp. viii, 134.

Fourth German Translation. Iambic Pentameter.

The name of Moritz Heyne is one of the most illustrious in the history of Beowulf scholarship. The Heyne editions of the text1 have been standard for nearly forty years, 64 while the translation has been recently reprinted (1898). Beside his work on the Beowulf, this scholar was to become prominent as editor of the Heliand and of Ulfilas, and as one of the staff appointed to complete Grimm’s Dictionary.

At the time when he printed his edition of the Beowulf, Heyne was a student at Halle, and but twenty-six years of age (born 1837)2. In his work he had some assistance from Professor Leo3 of Halle.

The translation was founded on the text of 1863. At the time it was by far the best edition that had yet appeared. It was furnished with an excellent glossary. The text had the advantage of the valuable work done by Grundtvig4 in collating the two transcripts made by Thorkelin5. It thus came a stage nearer the MS. readings than any other existing edition, while it avoided the unnecessary conjectures of the Danish editor.

Heyne’s text having been five times re-edited, the first edition of the translation often fails to conform to readings which have been introduced into the text in later editions; but the free nature of the translation makes this of no great importance.

The differences between the two editions are not of much importance. The translation is in general, though not always, brought up to the late editions of the text, 65 and some changes are made for the improvement of the meter.

The first edition contains 3201 lines; the second 3207. The theory and aim of the translation are not changed at all.

In this translation of the Beowulf, Heyne attempts to popularize what he considers the most beautiful of the Old English poems. He says of it—

With this in view, Heyne put his translation out in a form that would make it accessible to all. This was in itself an innovation. The works of Ettmüller6 and Simrock7 had been in a more elaborate format, while Grein’s translation8 was not only expensive, but encumbered with other work, and intended primarily for the scholar.

Heyne chose a new medium for his version, the unrimed iambic line. His aim being to get his book read, he avoided a literal translation, and rendered with commendable freedom, though not with inaccuracy. He used no strange compounds, and shunned an unnatural verse. Thus he produced the most readable translation that has ever appeared in Germany. Of his own attempt he says—

Heyne’s theory of translation is one that has been very little in vogue in Germany. He has been criticized on all sides for his freedom. Yet the criticism is undeserved. Heyne is never paraphrastic—he never adds anything foreign to the poem. He merely believes in translating the obscure as well as the simple ideas of his text. His ‘freedom’ seldom amounts to more than this—

He occasionally inserts a word for metrical reasons, and sometimes, in the interests of clearness, a demonstrative or personal pronoun, or even a proper name (cf. l. 500 of the extract).

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—

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.

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.

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.

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).

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 69 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:—

The account of the Fall of Hygelac and of Heardred, 2354–96, is shifted to line 2207 (p. 75).

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.

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).

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.

No edition of the text of Beowulf had appeared in England since the work of Thorpe1, now twenty years 72 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.

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.

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.

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., 73 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 74 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.

The translation is literal, and its value is therefore in direct ratio to the value of the text, which has been discussed above.

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.

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.

It will be made evident in the section that follows on the nature of Botkine’s translation that his work could never 76 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.

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:—

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.

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.

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 79 sense. Instances of this may be brought forward from the Finn episode:

ll. 1089 ff.

The idea is misinterpreted in Botkine’s—

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—

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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 82 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.

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.

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:—

The third and fourth editions are simple reprints, with some additions to the bibliography.

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 84 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.

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.

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:—

Hunferth’s taunt.     The swimming-match with Breca.     Joy in Heorot.

The translation, in its revised form, is throughout a faithful version of the original text. The fault of Garnett’s 86 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 87 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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:—

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.

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.

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.

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.

But the translator does not depend slavishly upon his text. He frequently uses emendations suggested by the scholars mentioned above, especially those of Professor 93 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.

As a whole, the translation may fairly be called faithful. The emendations from which Professor Earle sometimes 94 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.

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 95 ‘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.

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.

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.

The translation is in imitative measures and in archaic style.

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).

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, 99 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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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:—

It is not surprising that Hoffmann is unacquainted with the translations of Holder and Möller, as these works have 102 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—

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. 103 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.

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.

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

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