Beovulf (Bärwelf). Das älteste deutsche Heldengedicht

Concerning the Translator.

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.

Aim of the Volume.

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).

Nature of the Translation.

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 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:—

‘... diese angelsächsische Form selbst nur eine Uebertragungsform aus den ursprünglich deutschen Namen ist, wobei manch Einer sogar sinnlos verdreht worden, wie z.B. der Name des Helden selbst, der aus dem deutschen Bärwelf, Jungbär, zum Beovulf, Bienenwolf, gemacht worden war.’ —Vorbemerkung, p. 5.

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

Text Used.

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.

Dritter Gesang.

HUNFRID.

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).

1. See supra, p. 55.

2. See Vorbemerkung, p. 3.

3. The italics, save those used for proper names (which are von Wolzogen’s), indicate inaccurate renderings.