Beowulf: An Anglo-Saxon Poem, and the Fight at Finnsburg

Differences between the Editions.

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:—

‘I have revised certain passages with a view to greater accuracy, but I have not changed the plan of the work, for that would have necessitated the re-writing of the whole translation.’ —Preface to the second edition.

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

Circumstances of Publication.

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 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.

Texts Used.

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.

Method of Translation.

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:—

‘This involves naturally much inversion and occasional obscurity, and lacks smoothness; but it seemed to me to give the general reader a better idea of the poem than a mere prose translation would do, in addition to the advantage of literalness. While it would have been easy, by means of periphrasis and freer translation, to mend some of the defects chargeable to the line-for-line form, the translation would have lacked literalness, which I regarded as the most important object.’ —Preface to the first edition.

Nature of the Verse-form.

‘In respect to the rhythmical form, I have endeavored to preserve two accents to each half-line, with cæsura, and while not seeking alliteration, have employed it purposely wherever it readily presented itself. I considered that it mattered little whether the feet were iambi or trochees, anapæsts or dactyls, the preservation of the two accents being the main point, and have freely made use of all the usual licences in Early English verse. . . . To attain this point I have sometimes found it necessary to place unemphatic words in accented positions, and words usually accented in unaccented ones, which licence can also be found in Early English verse. . . . While the reader of modern English verse may sometimes be offended by the ruggedness of the rhythm, it is hoped that the Anglo-Saxon scholar will make allowances for the difficulty of reproducing, even approximately, the rhythm of the original. The reproduction of the sense as closely as possible had to be kept constantly in view, even to the detriment of the smoothness of the rhythm.’ —Preface to the first edition.

III.

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 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 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.

Reception of Garnett’s Translation.

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.

1. See supra, p. 71.

2. See supra, p. 79.