Ecglâfes Sohn Hûnferdh da sagte,
der zu Füssen sass dem Fürsten der Skildinge,
entband Beadurunen--ihm war Beowulfes Beginn,
des muthigen Meergängers, mächtig zuwider;
ungern sah er, dass ein andrer Mann
irgend Machtruhmes mehr in Mittelgart,
auf Erden äufnete denn er selber--:
‘Bist du der Beowulf, der mit Breca kämpfte
in sausender See, im Sundkampfe? 600
Ihr da aus Übermuth Untiefen prüftet
und aus Tollmuth ihr in tiefem Wasser
das Leben wagtet; liesset keinen,
nicht Freund noch Feind, da fernen euch
von der sorgvollen That, als zur See ihr rudertet.
Dort ihr den Egistrom mit Armen wandtet,
masset die Meerstrasse, mischtet mit Händen,
glittet über’s Geerried (Glanderfluthen
warf Winters Wuth!), in Wassers Gebiet
sieben Nächt’ ihr sorgtet: Er, Sieger der Wogen, 610
hatte mehr der Macht, denn zur Morgenzeit ihn
bei Headhoræmes die Hochfluth antrug.--
Von dannen er suchte die süsse Heimat,
lieb seinen Leuten, das Land der Brondinge,
die feste Friedeburg, da Volk er hatte,
Burg und Bauge;--All Erbot wider dich
der Sohn Beanstânes sorglichst erfüllte.’
_Criticism of the Translation._
In his translation Ettmüller followed in the steps of Kemble[2], 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is not thus literal, it is sure to be superseded later by the more
faithful rendering, as Schaldemose’s superseded Grundtvig’s in
Denmark[3]. 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. Grein[4], the next German scholar, took his
inspiration from Kemble[5] and Thorpe[6] rather than from Ettmüller.
[Footnote 1: See supra, p. 33.] [[Kemble]]
[Footnote 2: See supra, p. 33.] [[Kemble]]
[Footnote 3: See supra, p. 22, and infra, p. 41 ff.]
[Footnote 4: See infra, p. 55.] [[Grein]]
[Footnote 5: See supra, p. 33.] [[Kemble]]
[Footnote 6: See infra, p. 49.] [[Thorpe]]