Hunferd sagde,
Sønnen af Ecglaf;
han sad ved Scyldinge-
Styrerens Fødder;
Kiv han begyndte,
thi kjær var ham ikke
Beowulfs Reise,
den raske Søfarers,
men til Sorg og Harme, 1000
thi han saae ei gjærne
at en anden Mand
meer Magtroes havde,
under Himmelens Skyer
end selv han aatte:
Er Du den Beowulf,
der med Breca kjæmped’
paa det vide Hav
i Væddesvømning,
da I af Hovmod 1010
Havet udforsked’,
og dumdristige
i dybe Vande
vovede Livet;
ei vilde Nogen,
Ven eller Fjende,
afvende eders
sorgfulde Tog;
til Søen I da roed,
vendte med Armene 1020
de vilde Bølger,
maalde Havveien,
med Hænderne brød den,
og svam over Havet
mens Søen vælted
vinterlige Vover;
saa paa Vandenes Ryg
I strede syv Nætter;
han, Seirer paa Havet,
aatte meer Styrke, 1030
thi aarle on Morgenen
til Headhoræmes
Havet ham førde;
derfra han søgde
sit Fædrenerige,
feiret af Sine,
Brondinge-Landet
det fagre Fristed,
hvor et Folk han havde,
Borge og Ringe. 1040
Saa blev hvad Beanstans
Søn Dig loved’
sikkerlig opfyldt.
_Criticism of the Text and Translation._
There are two good things to be said of this volume: it contains a
literal translation, and it is a literal translation from Kemble’s text.
Being so, it could not be without merit. There was need of a literal
translation in Denmark. Grundtvig’s version certainly did not fulfil the
letter of the law, and Thorkelin’s had long since been forgotten.
Schaldemose’s dependence upon the translation of Kemble is very evident.
In general, the Danish translator is stopped by the same passages that
defy the English translator, e.g. the passage which Kemble failed to
interpret at line 3075 was duly and loyally omitted by Schaldemose.
I can find no evidence for the reiterated[6] statement that Schaldemose
is throughout his translation slavishly indebted to Ettmüller. Certain
it is that he avoided those peculiar forms of Ettmüller’s translation
which are nothing more than a transliteration from the Old English.
_Reception of the Volume._
It is a tribute to the Danish interest in Beowulf that Schaldemose’s
volume soon passed into a second edition. But it was not of a character
to arouse the interest of scholars in other countries. Thorpe, the next
editor of the poem, had never seen it.
The translation, being strictly literal, naturally commanded very little
attention even in Denmark; while it was utterly without interest for
readers and students in other countries.
[Footnote 1: See supra, p. 33.] [[Kemble]]
[Footnote 2: See infra, p. 121.] [[Leo]]
[Footnote 3: See supra, p. 37.] [[Ettmüller]]
[Footnote 4: See supra, p. 22.] [[Gruntvig]]
[Footnote 5: See supra, p. 15.] [[Thorkelin]]
[Footnote 6: See Wülker, _Ang. Anz._ IV, 69; Wackerbarth’s ed.
(see infra, p. 45).]