Illustrations of Anglo-Saxon Poetry

Circumstances of Publication.

The volume had its origin in the Terminal Lectures which the author gave as Professor of Anglo-Saxon and 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, and the Progress of the Interpretation of the Poem.

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.

‘The text has been throughout carefully collated with the original Manuscript, and the translation of Thorkelin revised with all the diligence of which the editor is capable.’ —Page 32.

‘Any attempt to restore the metre, and to correct the version throughout, would have exceeded the bounds, and involved much discussion foreign to the purpose of the present work. This must be left to the labours of the Saxon scholar. It is evident, however, that without a more correct text than that of Thorkelin, those labours must be hopeless. The wish of supplying that deficiency, may perhaps apologize for the occupying, by this Collation, so large a space of a work strictly dedicated to other purposes.’ —Page 137, footnote.

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 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.

Aim of the Volume, and Nature of the Translations.

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.

Latin Translation.

... Ossium annulos fregit; telum per omnem penetravit moribundam carnem. Illa in pavimentum corruit. Ensis erat cruentus, militare opus perfectum. Effulgebat lumen, lux intus stetit, non aliter quàm cum a cœlo lucidus splendet ætheris lampas. Ille per ædes gradiebatur, incessit juxta muros ensem tenens fortiter a capulo Higelaci minister irâ ac constantiâ (sc. Iratus et constans animi).

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.

1. See Editor’s Prefatory Notice, p. (iii).

2. See Prefatory Notice, p. (v), footnote.

3. See supra, pp. 14 f.

4. p. 23. Grundtvig is once mentioned in the notes, but the reference is from the editor, not the author.

5. p. 29.

6. Conybeare did not translate the episode of the swimming-match.