Beowulf. Heldengedicht des achten Jahrhunderts

Ettmüller.

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

Theory of Translation.

Ettmüller gives full expression to his theories and aims:—

‘Vor Allem habe ich so wörtlich als möglich übersetzt, da Treue das erste Erforderniss einer guten Übersetzung ist. Dann aber war mein Augenmerk vorzüglich auf Wohlklang und Verständlichkeit gerichtet. Letztere werden bei Übersetzungen dieser Art nur zu oft vernachlässigt, da manche der Ansicht sind, ihre Arbeit sei um so besser, je treuer sie die äussere Form des Originals in allen Einzelheiten wiedergebe. Aber dieweil diese so mühsam an der Schale knacken, entschlüpft ihnen nicht selten der Kern. Mein Bestreben war demnach keineswegs, z.B. jeden Vers ängstlich dem Originale nachzubilden, so dass die genaueste Übereinstimmung zwischen der Silbenzahl und den Hebungen oder gar dem Klange der Verse Statt fände. Das wäre ohnehin, ohne der deutschen Sprache die schreiendste Gewalt anzuthun, unmöglich gewesen. Ich habe vielmehr darnach mit Sorgfalt gestrebt, die Versbildung des angelsächsischen Gedichtes mir in allen ihren Erscheinungen klar zu machen, und dann frei nach dem gewonnenen Schema gearbeitet. Daher kann ich versichern, dass man für jeden Vers meiner Übersetzung gewiss ein angelsächsisches Vorbild findet, wenn auch nicht grade jedesmal die Verse einander decken. Dass dabei übrigens der höheren Rhythmik, d.h. dem ästhetisch richtigen Verhältnisse des Ausdruckes zu dem Ausgedrückten oder, mit Klopstock zu reden, des Zeitausdruckes oder Tonverhaltes (der Bewegung) zu dem Gedanken, überall die grösste Sorgfalt zugewendet ward, das braucht, dünkt mich, keiner besondern Versicherung; dies aber kann erreicht werden auch ohne knechtische Nachbildung des Originals.’ —Page 59.

Text, and Indebtedness to Preceding Scholars.

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 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.

Reception of the Translation.

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.

1. See supra, p. 33.

2. See supra, p. 33.

3. See supra, p. 22, and infra, p. 41 ff.

4. See infra, p. 55.

5. See supra, p. 33.

6. See infra, p. 49.