PRELIMINARY REMARKS ON THEBEOWULF MANUSCRIPTTheunique manuscript of theBeowulfis 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’sThesaurus. The poem is thus described:—‘Tractatus nobilissimus Poeticè scriptus. Præfationis hoc est initium.’The first nineteen lines follow, transcribed with a few errors.‘Initium autem primi Capitis sic se habet.’Lines 53–73, transcribed with a few errors.‘In hoc libro, qui Poeseos Anglo-Saxonicæ egregium est exemplum, descripta videntur bella quæ Beowulfus quidam Danus, ex Regio Scyldingorum stirpe Ortus, gessit contra Sueciæ Regulos.’ Page 218, col. b, and 219, col. a.No further notice was taken of the MS. until 1786, when Thorkelin1made 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 chippedaway, 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 ZupitzaAutotypes. 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 ZupitzaAutotypesbrought 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 paper3.1.See infra,p. 16.2.See infra,p. 49.3.See infra on Thorkelin,p. 19; Conybeare,p. 29; Kemble,p. 34; Thorpe,p. 51; Arnold,p. 72.SHARON TURNER’S EXTRACTSTheHistory 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. 8o, pp. 398–408.Second Edition, corrected and enlarged. London: Longman, Hurst, Rees, & Orme, 1807. 2 vols., 4o.Beowulfdescribed, 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.Points of Difference between the Various Editions.A part of this may be stated in the words of the author:—‘The poem had remained untouched and unnoticed both here and abroad until I observed its curious contents, and in 1805 announced it to the public. I could then give it only a hasty perusal, and from the MS. having a leaf interposed near its commencement, which belonged to a subsequent part, and from the peculiar obscurity which sometimes attends the Saxon poetry, I did not at that time sufficiently comprehend it, and had not leisure to apply a closer attention. But in the year 1818 I took it up again, as I was preparing my third edition, and then made that more correct analysis which was inserted in that and the subsequent editions, and which is also exhibited in the present.’ —Sixth edition, p. 293, footnote.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 Wanley1had mentioned theBeowulfin 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 theeditio princepsof 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.Turner, and his Knowledge of Old English.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 rememberedthat 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-calledParaphraseof Cædmon he is, of course, familiar; but his knowledge ofBeowulfandJudithis 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.Lines in the Poem Translated by Turner.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.Turner’s Account of Beowulf in the First Edition of his History.‘The most interesting remains of the Anglo-Saxon poetry which time has suffered to reach us, are contained in the Anglo-Saxon poem in the Cotton Library, Vitellius A. 15. Wanley mentions it as a poem in which “seem to be described the wars which one Beowulf, a Dane of the royal race of the Scyldingi, waged against the reguli of Sweden4.” But this account of the contents of the MS. is incorrect. It is a composition more curious and important. It is a narration of the attemptof Beowulf to wreck the fæthe or deadly feud on Hrothgar, for a homicide which he had committed. It may be called an Anglo-Saxon epic poem. It abounds with speeches which Beowulf and Hrothgar and their partisans make to each other, with much occasional description and sentiment.’ —Book vi, chap. iv, pp. 398 ff.The Story of the Poem as Interpreted by Turner.[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:HunferthspokeThe son of Ecglafe;Who had sat at the footOf the lord of the ScyldingiAmong the band of the battle mystery.To go in the path of BeowulfWas to him a great pride;He was zealousThat to him it should be grantedThat no other manWas esteemed greater in the worldUnder the heavens than himself.‘Art thou BeowulfHe that with such profitDwells in the expansive sea,Amid the contests of the ocean?There yet5for riches go!You try for deceitful gloryIn deep waters6.—Nor can any man,Whether dear or odious,Restrain you from the sorrowful path—There yet7with eye-streamsTo the miserable you8flourish:You meet in the sea-street;You oppress with your hands;9You glide over the ocean’s waves;The fury of winter rages,Yet on the watery domainSeven nights have ye toiled.’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:Dear to his people,of the land of the Brondingi;the Lord of fair cities,where he had people,barks, and bracelets,Ealwith, the son of Beandane,the faithful companionmenaced.“Then I thinkworse things will be to thee,thou noble one!Every where the rushof grim battle will be made.If thou darest the grendles,the time of a long nightwill be near to thee.”’Third Edition.‘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.“Art thou Beowulf,he that with such profitlabours on the wide sea,amid the contests of the ocean?There you for riches,and for deceitful glory,explore its baysin the deep waters,till you sleep with your elders.Nor can any man restrain you,whether dear or odious to you,from this sorrowful path.There you rush on the wave;there on the water streams:from the miserable you flourish.You place yourselves in the sea-street;you oppress with your hands;you glide over the oceanthrough the waves of its seas.The fury of the winter rages,yet on the watery domainseven nights have ye toiled.”’Criticism of the Extracts.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 theBeowulf.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 ofBeowulfso 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.1.See supra,p. 7.2.See infra,p. 15.3.See the Life of Turner by Thomas Seccombe,Dict. Nat. Biog.4.Wanley, Catal. Saxon MS., p. 218.5.Second edition—Ever acquired under heavenmore of the world’s glorythan himself.6.Second edition—ye.7.Second edition adds—Ye sleep not with your ancestors.8.Second edition omits.9.Second edition reads—You glide over the oceanon the waves of the sea.THORKELIN’S EDITIONDe| Danorum | Rebus Gestis SeculIII&IV| Poema Danicum Dialecto Anglosaxonica. | Ex Bibliotheca Cottoniana Musaei Britannici | edidit versione lat. et indicibus auxit | Grim. Johnson Thorkelin.Dr J V.| HavniæTypis Th. E. Rangel. |MDCCXV. 4to, pp. xx, 299, appendix 5.First Edition. First Translation (Latin).Circumstances of Publication.The words of Wanley cited above1did 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:—‘Via tandem mihi data fuit ad desideratum nimis diu divini vatis Danici incomparabile opus. Arcta etenim, quæ nos et Britannos intercessit amicitia, me allexit, ut, clementissime annuentibus Augustissimis patriæ patribusChristiano VII.etFrederico VI.iter in Britanniam anno seculi præteritiLXXXVI. ad thesauros bibliothecarum Albionensium perscrutandos facerem. . . . A curatoribus, Musæi Britannici, aliarumque Bibliothecarum, potestas mihi data [est] inspiciendi, tractandi, et exscribendi omnia, quæ rebus Danicis lucem affere possent manuscripta. Ad quam rem conficiendam viri nostro præconio majores Josephus Planta et Richardus Southgate dicti Musæi Brit. præfecti in me sua officia humanissime contulerunt. Optimo igitur successu et uberrimo cum fructu domum reversus sum . . .’ (pp. viii, ix).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:—‘Quæcunque igitur possent hoc meum negotium adjuvare, comparare coepi, magnamque librorum copiam unde quaque congessi, quorum opera carmen aggrederer. In hoc me sedulum ita gessi, ut opus totum annoMDCCCVIIconfecerim, idem brevi editurus . . .’ (p. xv).Just at this time, unfortunately, Copenhagen was stormed by the English fleet, and Thorkelin’s text and notes wereburned with his library. But the transcripts were saved. Thorkelin renewed his labors under the patronage of Bülow, and at length published in 1815.Thorkelin, and his Interpretation of the Beowulf.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 theBeowulf. Grundtvig said that the transcript of theBeowulfmust 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 Turner4could describe theBeowulf. 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 participatingin that expedition. He failed to identify Hnæf, or Hengest, or Hrothulf, &c.Extract7.Hunferþ maleodeHunferdloquebaturEcglafes bearnEcglavifilius,Þe æt fotum sætQui ad pedes seditFrean ScyldingaDomini Scyldingorum,On band beaduEmeritus stipendiisRune wæs himMomordit eumBeowulfes siþ modgesBeowulfiitinere elatiMere faranMaria sulcandoMicel æfþuncaMagna indignatio,For þon þe he ne uþe10Propterea quod ille nesciretÞæt ænig oþer manUllum alium virumÆfre mærþaMagis celebremÞon ma middangardesIn mundoGehedde under heofenumNominari sub coeloÞon he sylfa eartQuam se ipsum.Þu se BeowulfTu sisBeowulfus,Se þe wiþ breccanQui ob prædasWunne on sidne sæCeris per latum æquorYmb sund fliteEt maria pugnas.Þær git for wlence20Ibi vos ob divitiasWada cunnedonVada explorastis,And for dol gilpeEt ob falsam gloriamOn deop wæterProfundas æquas.Aldrum neþdonAnnis subactoNe mic ænig monNon mihi aliquisNe leof ne laþAmicus aut hostisBelean mighte.Objicere potest,Sorh fullne siþIllacrimabiles expeditiones.Þa git on sund reon.Ubi vos per æquora ruistis,Þa git ea gor stream30Ibi fluctus sanguinis rivisEarmum þehtonMiseri texistis.Mæton mere strætaMetiti estis maris strata:Mundum brugdonCastella terruistis:Glidon ofer garsecgFluitavistis trans æquora.Geofon yþumSalis undæWeol wintris wylmFervuerunt nimborum æstu.Git on wæteris æhtVos in aquarum vadisSeofon night swunconSeptem noctibus afflicti fuistis.He þe at sundeIlle cum sundumOferflat hæfde40Transvolasset,Mare mægenMagis intensæ viresÞa hine on morgen tidIllum tempore matutinoOn heaþo RæmisIn altam RæmisHolm up æt baerInsulam advexere.Þonon he gesohteDeinde petiitSwæsne.Dulcem,Leof his leodumCharam suo populoLond BrondingaTerram Brondingorum.Freoþo burh fægere.Libertate urbem conspicuamÞaer he folc ahte50Ibi populo possessamBurh and beagasUrbem et opesBeot eal wiþCorrepsit. Omne contraÞe sunu BeanstanesTibi filiusBeansteniSode gelæste.Vere persolvit.Criticism of the Text.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.Line 1,formaleodereadmaþelode.4,insert period afterScyldinga.9,insert period afteræfþunca.13,formiddangardesreadmiddangeardes.15,forþonreadþonne.17,forbreccanreadbrecan (i.e. Brecan).25,formicreadinc.27,formightereadmihte.37,forwæterisreadwæteres.38,fornightreadniht.40,insert period afteroferflat.43,forheaþo Ræmisreadheaþoræmes (i.e. Heaþorǣmas).46,forSwæsnereadswæsne · ᛟ · (i.e.ēðel).54,forsodereadsoðe.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.’Criticism of the Translation.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 thetranslation 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:—‘Nothing but malevolence could cavil at the trivial errors which the very best scholars are daily found to commit, but the case is widely different when those errors are so numerous as totally to destroy the value of a work. I am therefore most reluctantly compelled to state that not five lines of Thorkelin’s edition can be found in succession in which some gross fault, either in the transcription or translation, does not betray the editor’s utter ignorance of the Anglo-Saxon language.’ —Edition of 1835, Introd., p. xxix.Reception of Thorkelin’s Edition.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.Turner.On collating the Doctor’s printed text with the MS. I have commonly found an inaccuracy of copying in every page.—Fifth edition, p. 289, footnote.Kemble, see supra.Thorpe.(The work of the learned Icelander exhibits) ‘a text formed according to his ideas of Anglo-Saxon, and accompanied by his Latin translation, both the one and the other standing equally in need of an Œdipus.’ —Edition of 1855, Preface, xiv.See also Grundtvig’s criticism inBeowulfs Beorh, pp. xvii ff.1.Supra, p. 7.2.See also Grundtvig’s edition of the text ofBeowulf, p. xvi.3.SeeBeowulfs Beorh, p. xviii.4.See supra,p. 11.5.See Thorkelin, p. 257.6.Ibid., p. 259.7.See Thorkelin, p. 40.GRUNDTVIG’S TRANSLATION*Bjowulf’sDraape. Et Gothisk Helte-digt fra forrige Aar-tusinde af Angel-Saxisk paa Danske Riim ved Nic. Fred. Sev. Grundtvig, Præst. Kjøbenhavn, 18201. 8o, pp. lxxiv, 325.Bjovulvs-Draapen, etHøinordiskHeltedigt, fra Anguls-Tungen fordansket af Nik. Fred. Sev. Grundtvig. Anden forbedrede Udgave. Kiøbenhavn. Karl Schønbergs Forlag. 1865. 8o, pp. xvi, 224.First Danish Translation. Ballad Measures.Grundtvig.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 theEdda. 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 theBeowulfwill 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.Circumstances of Publication.InBeowulfs 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,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 theCopenhagen 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’sAnglo-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.Progress of the Interpretation of the Poem.Grundtvig was the first to understand the story ofBeowulf. 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.Text Used.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.Differences between the First and Second Editions.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.Aim of the Volume, and Nature of the Translation.We begin by quoting the author’s words:—‘I have studied the poem as if I were going to translate it word for word . . . but I will not and have not translated it in that way, and I will venture to maintain that my translation is a faithful one, historically faithful, inasmuch as I have never wilfully altered or interpolated anything, and poetically faithful inasmuch as I have tried with all my might vividly to express what I saw in the poem. . . . Whoever understands both languages and possesses a poetical sense will see what I mean, and whoever is deficient in knowledge or sense, or both, may stick to his own view, if he will only let me stick to mine, which may be weak enough, but is not so utterly devoid of style and poetry as little pettifoggers in the intellectual world maintain because they can see very well that my method is not theirs. “I have,” said Cicero, “translated Demosthenes, not as a grammarian but as an orator, and therefore have striven not so much to convince as to persuade my readers of the truth of his words”: methinks I need no other defence as regards connoisseurs and just judges, and if I am much mistaken in this opinion, then my work is absolutely indefensible3.’ —Pages xxxiv, xxxv.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 andattractive 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.Extract.Sjette Sang.Trætten med Hunferd Drost og Trøsten derover.NuHunferdtog til Orde4,OgEgglavsSøn var han,Men Klammeri han gjordeMed Tale sin paa Stand.Han var en fornem Herre,Han sad ved Thronens Fod,Men avindsyg desværre,Han var ei Bjovulv god;En Torn var ham i ØietDen Ædlings Herrefærd,Som havde Bølgen pløietOg Ære høstet der;Thi Hunferd taalte ikke,Med Næsen høit i Sky,At Nogen vilde stikkeHam selv i Roes og Ry.‘Er du,’ see det var Skosen,‘Den Bjovulv Mudderpram,Som dykked efter RosenOg drev i Land med Skam,Som kæppedes medBrækkeOg holdt sig ei for brav,Dengang I, som to Giække,Omflød paa vildne Hav!I vilde med jer SvømmenPaa Vandet giøre Blæst,Men drev dog kun med Strømmen,Alt som I kunde bedst;For aldrig Det ei keiseJeg vilde slig en Klik,Som for den VendereiseI paa jert Rygte sik.Paa Landet var I friske,Men Vand kan slukke Ild,I svømmed som to Fiske,Ia, snart som døde Sild;Da sagtnedes Stoheien,Der Storm og Bølge stridIer viste VinterveienAlt i en Uges Tid.Dog, om end Narre begge,Kom du dog værst deran,Thi fra dig svømmed BrækkeOg blev din Overmand;Du artig blev tilbage,Der han en MorgenstundOpskvulpedes saa fagePaa høie Romøs Grund,Hvorfra sin Kaas han satteTilBrondingernasLand,Med Borge der og SkatteHan var en holden Mand;Der havde han sit Rige,Og deiligt var hans Slot,Han elsket var tilligeAf hver sin Undersaat.SaaBjansteensSøn udførteAlt hvad han trued med;Men da du, som vi hørte,Kom der saa galt afsted,Saa tør jeg nok formode,Om end du giør dig kry,Det giør slet ingen Gode,Du brænder dig paany;Ia, vil en Nat du voveAt bie Grændel her,Da tør derfor jeg love,Dig times en Ufærd.’Criticism of the Translation.The poem departs so far from the text ofBeowulfthat 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 preface5Grundtvig 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 theBeowulfstyle. 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. InBeowulfhe 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 excellentstory. But it can lay no claim to historic or poetic fidelity to theBeowulf.Reception of the Book.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.
Theunique manuscript of theBeowulfis 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’sThesaurus. The poem is thus described:—
‘Tractatus nobilissimus Poeticè scriptus. Præfationis hoc est initium.’
The first nineteen lines follow, transcribed with a few errors.
‘Initium autem primi Capitis sic se habet.’
Lines 53–73, transcribed with a few errors.
‘In hoc libro, qui Poeseos Anglo-Saxonicæ egregium est exemplum, descripta videntur bella quæ Beowulfus quidam Danus, ex Regio Scyldingorum stirpe Ortus, gessit contra Sueciæ Regulos.’ Page 218, col. b, and 219, col. a.
No further notice was taken of the MS. until 1786, when Thorkelin1made 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 chippedaway, 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 ZupitzaAutotypes. 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 ZupitzaAutotypesbrought 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.
1.See infra,p. 16.2.See infra,p. 49.3.See infra on Thorkelin,p. 19; Conybeare,p. 29; Kemble,p. 34; Thorpe,p. 51; Arnold,p. 72.
1.See infra,p. 16.
2.See infra,p. 49.
3.See infra on Thorkelin,p. 19; Conybeare,p. 29; Kemble,p. 34; Thorpe,p. 51; Arnold,p. 72.
TheHistory 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. 8o, pp. 398–408.
Second Edition, corrected and enlarged. London: Longman, Hurst, Rees, & Orme, 1807. 2 vols., 4o.Beowulfdescribed, 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 poem had remained untouched and unnoticed both here and abroad until I observed its curious contents, and in 1805 announced it to the public. I could then give it only a hasty perusal, and from the MS. having a leaf interposed near its commencement, which belonged to a subsequent part, and from the peculiar obscurity which sometimes attends the Saxon poetry, I did not at that time sufficiently comprehend it, and had not leisure to apply a closer attention. But in the year 1818 I took it up again, as I was preparing my third edition, and then made that more correct analysis which was inserted in that and the subsequent editions, and which is also exhibited in the present.’ —Sixth edition, p. 293, footnote.
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 Wanley1had mentioned theBeowulfin 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 theeditio princepsof 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 rememberedthat 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-calledParaphraseof Cædmon he is, of course, familiar; but his knowledge ofBeowulfandJudithis 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.
‘The most interesting remains of the Anglo-Saxon poetry which time has suffered to reach us, are contained in the Anglo-Saxon poem in the Cotton Library, Vitellius A. 15. Wanley mentions it as a poem in which “seem to be described the wars which one Beowulf, a Dane of the royal race of the Scyldingi, waged against the reguli of Sweden4.” But this account of the contents of the MS. is incorrect. It is a composition more curious and important. It is a narration of the attemptof Beowulf to wreck the fæthe or deadly feud on Hrothgar, for a homicide which he had committed. It may be called an Anglo-Saxon epic poem. It abounds with speeches which Beowulf and Hrothgar and their partisans make to each other, with much occasional description and sentiment.’ —Book vi, chap. iv, pp. 398 ff.
[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:
HunferthspokeThe son of Ecglafe;Who had sat at the footOf the lord of the ScyldingiAmong the band of the battle mystery.To go in the path of BeowulfWas to him a great pride;He was zealousThat to him it should be grantedThat no other manWas esteemed greater in the worldUnder the heavens than himself.‘Art thou BeowulfHe that with such profitDwells in the expansive sea,Amid the contests of the ocean?There yet5for riches go!You try for deceitful gloryIn deep waters6.—Nor can any man,Whether dear or odious,Restrain you from the sorrowful path—There yet7with eye-streamsTo the miserable you8flourish:You meet in the sea-street;You oppress with your hands;9You glide over the ocean’s waves;The fury of winter rages,Yet on the watery domainSeven nights have ye toiled.’
Hunferthspoke
The son of Ecglafe;
Who had sat at the foot
Of the lord of the Scyldingi
Among the band of the battle mystery.
To go in the path of Beowulf
Was to him a great pride;
He was zealous
That to him it should be granted
That no other man
Was esteemed greater in the world
Under the heavens than himself.
‘Art thou Beowulf
He that with such profit
Dwells in the expansive sea,
Amid the contests of the ocean?
There yet5for riches go!
You try for deceitful glory
In deep waters6.—
Nor can any man,
Whether dear or odious,
Restrain you from the sorrowful path—
There yet7with eye-streams
To the miserable you8flourish:
You meet in the sea-street;
You oppress with your hands;
9You glide over the ocean’s waves;
The fury of winter rages,
Yet on the watery domain
Seven nights have ye toiled.’
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:
Dear to his people,of the land of the Brondingi;the Lord of fair cities,where he had people,barks, and bracelets,Ealwith, the son of Beandane,the faithful companionmenaced.“Then I thinkworse things will be to thee,thou noble one!Every where the rushof grim battle will be made.If thou darest the grendles,the time of a long nightwill be near to thee.”’
Dear to his people,
of the land of the Brondingi;
the Lord of fair cities,
where he had people,
barks, and bracelets,
Ealwith, the son of Beandane,
the faithful companion
menaced.
“Then I think
worse things will be to thee,
thou noble one!
Every where the rush
of grim battle will be made.
If thou darest the grendles,
the time of a long night
will be near to thee.”’
‘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.
“Art thou Beowulf,he that with such profitlabours on the wide sea,amid the contests of the ocean?There you for riches,and for deceitful glory,explore its baysin the deep waters,till you sleep with your elders.Nor can any man restrain you,whether dear or odious to you,from this sorrowful path.There you rush on the wave;there on the water streams:from the miserable you flourish.You place yourselves in the sea-street;you oppress with your hands;you glide over the oceanthrough the waves of its seas.The fury of the winter rages,yet on the watery domainseven nights have ye toiled.”’
“Art thou Beowulf,
he that with such profit
labours on the wide sea,
amid the contests of the ocean?
There you for riches,
and for deceitful glory,
explore its bays
in the deep waters,
till you sleep with your elders.
Nor can any man restrain you,
whether dear or odious to you,
from this sorrowful path.
There you rush on the wave;
there on the water streams:
from the miserable you flourish.
You place yourselves in the sea-street;
you oppress with your hands;
you glide over the ocean
through the waves of its seas.
The fury of the winter rages,
yet on the watery domain
seven nights have ye toiled.”’
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 theBeowulf.
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 ofBeowulfso 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.
1.See supra,p. 7.2.See infra,p. 15.3.See the Life of Turner by Thomas Seccombe,Dict. Nat. Biog.4.Wanley, Catal. Saxon MS., p. 218.5.Second edition—Ever acquired under heavenmore of the world’s glorythan himself.6.Second edition—ye.7.Second edition adds—Ye sleep not with your ancestors.8.Second edition omits.9.Second edition reads—You glide over the oceanon the waves of the sea.
1.See supra,p. 7.
2.See infra,p. 15.
3.See the Life of Turner by Thomas Seccombe,Dict. Nat. Biog.
4.Wanley, Catal. Saxon MS., p. 218.
5.Second edition—
Ever acquired under heavenmore of the world’s glorythan himself.
Ever acquired under heaven
more of the world’s glory
than himself.
6.Second edition—ye.
7.Second edition adds—
Ye sleep not with your ancestors.
8.Second edition omits.
9.Second edition reads—
You glide over the oceanon the waves of the sea.
You glide over the ocean
on the waves of the sea.
De| Danorum | Rebus Gestis SeculIII&IV| Poema Danicum Dialecto Anglosaxonica. | Ex Bibliotheca Cottoniana Musaei Britannici | edidit versione lat. et indicibus auxit | Grim. Johnson Thorkelin.Dr J V.| HavniæTypis Th. E. Rangel. |MDCCXV. 4to, pp. xx, 299, appendix 5.
First Edition. First Translation (Latin).
The words of Wanley cited above1did 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:—
‘Via tandem mihi data fuit ad desideratum nimis diu divini vatis Danici incomparabile opus. Arcta etenim, quæ nos et Britannos intercessit amicitia, me allexit, ut, clementissime annuentibus Augustissimis patriæ patribusChristiano VII.etFrederico VI.iter in Britanniam anno seculi præteritiLXXXVI. ad thesauros bibliothecarum Albionensium perscrutandos facerem. . . . A curatoribus, Musæi Britannici, aliarumque Bibliothecarum, potestas mihi data [est] inspiciendi, tractandi, et exscribendi omnia, quæ rebus Danicis lucem affere possent manuscripta. Ad quam rem conficiendam viri nostro præconio majores Josephus Planta et Richardus Southgate dicti Musæi Brit. præfecti in me sua officia humanissime contulerunt. Optimo igitur successu et uberrimo cum fructu domum reversus sum . . .’ (pp. viii, ix).
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:—
‘Quæcunque igitur possent hoc meum negotium adjuvare, comparare coepi, magnamque librorum copiam unde quaque congessi, quorum opera carmen aggrederer. In hoc me sedulum ita gessi, ut opus totum annoMDCCCVIIconfecerim, idem brevi editurus . . .’ (p. xv).
Just at this time, unfortunately, Copenhagen was stormed by the English fleet, and Thorkelin’s text and notes wereburned 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 theBeowulf. Grundtvig said that the transcript of theBeowulfmust 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 Turner4could describe theBeowulf. 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 participatingin 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 thetranslation 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:—
‘Nothing but malevolence could cavil at the trivial errors which the very best scholars are daily found to commit, but the case is widely different when those errors are so numerous as totally to destroy the value of a work. I am therefore most reluctantly compelled to state that not five lines of Thorkelin’s edition can be found in succession in which some gross fault, either in the transcription or translation, does not betray the editor’s utter ignorance of the Anglo-Saxon language.’ —Edition of 1835, Introd., p. xxix.
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.
Turner.On collating the Doctor’s printed text with the MS. I have commonly found an inaccuracy of copying in every page.—Fifth edition, p. 289, footnote.
Kemble, see supra.
Thorpe.(The work of the learned Icelander exhibits) ‘a text formed according to his ideas of Anglo-Saxon, and accompanied by his Latin translation, both the one and the other standing equally in need of an Œdipus.’ —Edition of 1855, Preface, xiv.
See also Grundtvig’s criticism inBeowulfs Beorh, pp. xvii ff.
1.Supra, p. 7.2.See also Grundtvig’s edition of the text ofBeowulf, p. xvi.3.SeeBeowulfs Beorh, p. xviii.4.See supra,p. 11.5.See Thorkelin, p. 257.6.Ibid., p. 259.7.See Thorkelin, p. 40.
1.Supra, p. 7.
2.See also Grundtvig’s edition of the text ofBeowulf, p. xvi.
3.SeeBeowulfs Beorh, p. xviii.
4.See supra,p. 11.
5.See Thorkelin, p. 257.
6.Ibid., p. 259.
7.See Thorkelin, p. 40.
*Bjowulf’sDraape. Et Gothisk Helte-digt fra forrige Aar-tusinde af Angel-Saxisk paa Danske Riim ved Nic. Fred. Sev. Grundtvig, Præst. Kjøbenhavn, 18201. 8o, pp. lxxiv, 325.
Bjovulvs-Draapen, etHøinordiskHeltedigt, fra Anguls-Tungen fordansket af Nik. Fred. Sev. Grundtvig. Anden forbedrede Udgave. Kiøbenhavn. Karl Schønbergs Forlag. 1865. 8o, 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 theEdda. 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 theBeowulfwill 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.
InBeowulfs 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,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 theCopenhagen 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’sAnglo-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 ofBeowulf. 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:—
‘I have studied the poem as if I were going to translate it word for word . . . but I will not and have not translated it in that way, and I will venture to maintain that my translation is a faithful one, historically faithful, inasmuch as I have never wilfully altered or interpolated anything, and poetically faithful inasmuch as I have tried with all my might vividly to express what I saw in the poem. . . . Whoever understands both languages and possesses a poetical sense will see what I mean, and whoever is deficient in knowledge or sense, or both, may stick to his own view, if he will only let me stick to mine, which may be weak enough, but is not so utterly devoid of style and poetry as little pettifoggers in the intellectual world maintain because they can see very well that my method is not theirs. “I have,” said Cicero, “translated Demosthenes, not as a grammarian but as an orator, and therefore have striven not so much to convince as to persuade my readers of the truth of his words”: methinks I need no other defence as regards connoisseurs and just judges, and if I am much mistaken in this opinion, then my work is absolutely indefensible3.’ —Pages xxxiv, xxxv.
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 andattractive 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.
NuHunferdtog til Orde4,OgEgglavsSøn var han,Men Klammeri han gjordeMed Tale sin paa Stand.Han var en fornem Herre,Han sad ved Thronens Fod,Men avindsyg desværre,Han var ei Bjovulv god;En Torn var ham i ØietDen Ædlings Herrefærd,Som havde Bølgen pløietOg Ære høstet der;Thi Hunferd taalte ikke,Med Næsen høit i Sky,At Nogen vilde stikkeHam selv i Roes og Ry.‘Er du,’ see det var Skosen,‘Den Bjovulv Mudderpram,Som dykked efter RosenOg drev i Land med Skam,Som kæppedes medBrækkeOg holdt sig ei for brav,Dengang I, som to Giække,Omflød paa vildne Hav!I vilde med jer SvømmenPaa Vandet giøre Blæst,Men drev dog kun med Strømmen,Alt som I kunde bedst;For aldrig Det ei keiseJeg vilde slig en Klik,Som for den VendereiseI paa jert Rygte sik.Paa Landet var I friske,Men Vand kan slukke Ild,I svømmed som to Fiske,Ia, snart som døde Sild;Da sagtnedes Stoheien,Der Storm og Bølge stridIer viste VinterveienAlt i en Uges Tid.Dog, om end Narre begge,Kom du dog værst deran,Thi fra dig svømmed BrækkeOg blev din Overmand;Du artig blev tilbage,Der han en MorgenstundOpskvulpedes saa fagePaa høie Romøs Grund,Hvorfra sin Kaas han satteTilBrondingernasLand,Med Borge der og SkatteHan var en holden Mand;Der havde han sit Rige,Og deiligt var hans Slot,Han elsket var tilligeAf hver sin Undersaat.SaaBjansteensSøn udførteAlt hvad han trued med;Men da du, som vi hørte,Kom der saa galt afsted,Saa tør jeg nok formode,Om end du giør dig kry,Det giør slet ingen Gode,Du brænder dig paany;Ia, vil en Nat du voveAt bie Grændel her,Da tør derfor jeg love,Dig times en Ufærd.’
NuHunferdtog til Orde4,
OgEgglavsSøn var han,
Men Klammeri han gjorde
Med Tale sin paa Stand.
Han var en fornem Herre,
Han sad ved Thronens Fod,
Men avindsyg desværre,
Han var ei Bjovulv god;
En Torn var ham i Øiet
Den Ædlings Herrefærd,
Som havde Bølgen pløiet
Og Ære høstet der;
Thi Hunferd taalte ikke,
Med Næsen høit i Sky,
At Nogen vilde stikke
Ham selv i Roes og Ry.
‘Er du,’ see det var Skosen,
‘Den Bjovulv Mudderpram,
Som dykked efter Rosen
Og drev i Land med Skam,
Som kæppedes medBrække
Og holdt sig ei for brav,
Dengang I, som to Giække,
Omflød paa vildne Hav!
I vilde med jer Svømmen
Paa Vandet giøre Blæst,
Men drev dog kun med Strømmen,
Alt som I kunde bedst;
For aldrig Det ei keise
Jeg vilde slig en Klik,
Som for den Vendereise
I paa jert Rygte sik.
Paa Landet var I friske,
Men Vand kan slukke Ild,
I svømmed som to Fiske,
Ia, snart som døde Sild;
Da sagtnedes Stoheien,
Der Storm og Bølge strid
Ier viste Vinterveien
Alt i en Uges Tid.
Dog, om end Narre begge,
Kom du dog værst deran,
Thi fra dig svømmed Brække
Og blev din Overmand;
Du artig blev tilbage,
Der han en Morgenstund
Opskvulpedes saa fage
Paa høie Romøs Grund,
Hvorfra sin Kaas han satte
TilBrondingernasLand,
Med Borge der og Skatte
Han var en holden Mand;
Der havde han sit Rige,
Og deiligt var hans Slot,
Han elsket var tillige
Af hver sin Undersaat.
SaaBjansteensSøn udførte
Alt hvad han trued med;
Men da du, som vi hørte,
Kom der saa galt afsted,
Saa tør jeg nok formode,
Om end du giør dig kry,
Det giør slet ingen Gode,
Du brænder dig paany;
Ia, vil en Nat du vove
At bie Grændel her,
Da tør derfor jeg love,
Dig times en Ufærd.’
The poem departs so far from the text ofBeowulfthat 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 preface5Grundtvig 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 theBeowulfstyle. 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. InBeowulfhe 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 excellentstory. But it can lay no claim to historic or poetic fidelity to theBeowulf.
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.