Beowulf: An Anglo-Saxon Poem, and the Fight at Finnsburg, translated by
James M. Garnett, M.A., LL.D., Boston, U.S.A.: published by Ginn, Heath,
& Co., 1882. 8vo, pp. xl, 107.
Second Edition, Ginn, Heath, & Co., 1885. 8vo, pp. xlvi, 110.
Third Edition, Ginn & Co., 1892. Reprinted 1899. 8vo, pp. liii, 110.
Fourth Edition, 1900.
Sixth English Translation. Imitative Measures.
_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 Arnold[1] and
Lumsden[2], 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.