VON WOLZOGEN'S TRANSLATION

Beovulf (Barwelf). Das alteste deutsche Heldengedicht. Aus dem Angelsachsischen von Hans von Wolzogen. Leipzig: Philipp Reclam, jun.

(1872?).

Volume 430 of Reclam's Universal-Bibliothek. Small 8vo, pp. 104.

Fifth German Translation. Imitative Measures.

_Concerning the Translator._

Hans von Wolzogen (born 1848), popularly known as a writer on the Wagnerian operas and as conductor of the _Bayreuther Blatter_, 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 'fur unser modernes Public.u.m,' and (2) to make a convenient handbook for the student, so that the beginner, with Grein's text[1] 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 angelsachsische Form selbst nur eine Uebertragungsform aus den ursprunglich deutschen Namen ist, wobei manch Einer sogar sinnlos verdreht worden, wie z.B. der Name des Helden selbst, der aus dem deutschen Barwelf, Jungbar, 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 texts[2], but the work is so inaccurate that exact information on this point is impossible from merely internal evidence.

EXTRACT.

DRITTER GESANG.

HUNFRID.

_So sagte Hunfrid_[3], der Sohn des _Eckleif_, Dem Schildingenfursten zu Fussen gesessen, Kampfrunen entbindend (es krankte des _Barwelf_ _Muthige Meerfahrt_ machtig den Stolzen, Der an Ehren nicht mehr einem andern Manne 5 Zu gonnen gemeint war im Garten der Mitte, Als wie unter'm Himmel erworben er selbst!): 'Bist du der _Barwelf_, der mit _Brecht_ bekampfte Auf weiter See im Wetteschwimmen, Da ubermuthig und ehrbegierig 10 Eu'r Leben ihr wagtet in Wa.s.sertiefen, _Die beid' ihr durchschwammt?_ Da brachte zum Schw.a.n.ken Den Vorsatz der furchtbaren Fahrt euch Keiner _Mit Bitten und Warnen_, _und_ Beide durchtheiltet Mit gebreiteten Armen die Brandung ihr rudernd, 15 Durchma.s.set das Meer mit _meisternden_ Handen Auf wogenden Wegen, wahrend der Wirbelsturm Rast' in den Well'n, und _ihr rangt mit_ dem Wa.s.ser Durch sieben Nachte. Der Sieger im Neidspiel Zeigte sich macht'ger; zur Zeit des Morgens 20 Riss zu den Haduraumen die Flut ihn; ins eigene Erbe enteilt' er von dort, Zum Lande der Brandinge, lieb seinen _Mannen_, Zur bergenden Burg. Da gebot er dem Volke _Schlossreich und schatzreich_. Wie geschworen, so hielt 25 Sein Versprechen dir redlich der Sprossling des _Bonstein_.'

_Criticism of the Translation._

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 _horngeap_ (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 Wa.s.ser'

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),

_Ic him enode deoran sweorde swa hit gedefe waes._

which is translated,

dawider doch diente Mein treffliches Schwert, das treu mir beistand. (p. 27.)

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 leof ne la. (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).

[Footnote 1: See supra, p. 55.] [[Grein]]

[Footnote 2: See Vorbemerkung, p. 3.]

[Footnote 3: The italics, save those used for proper names (which are von Wolzogen's), indicate inaccurate renderings.]

ARNOLD'S EDITION

Beowulf, a heroic poem of the eighth century, with a translation, notes, and appendix, by Thomas Arnold, M.A. London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1876. 8vo, pp. xliii, 223.

Fourth English Translation. Prose.

_Circ.u.mstances of Publication._

No edition of the text of _Beowulf_ had appeared in England since the work of Thorpe[1], now twenty years old. The textual criticism of the Germans had, meanwhile, greatly advanced the interpretation of the poem.

Grein's text of the poem had pa.s.sed into a second, and Heyne's into a third, edition. There was an opportunity, therefore, for an improved English edition which should incorporate the results of German scholarship. This edition Mr. Thomas Arnold (1823-1900) undertook to supply.

_Relation of the Parts._

The Introduction contained a new theory of the origin of the poem[2].

But the important part of the book was the text and translation. There is no glossary[3]. The notes are at the bottom of the page. Here glossarial, textual, and literary information is bundled together. There is a very inadequate bibliography in the Introduction.