Hunferd sprach, des Ecglâf Sohn, 500
Welcher zu Füssen sass des Herren der Scyldinge;
Er löste der Streiter Geheimniss--ihm war Beowulfs Fahrt,
Des mutigen Meerfahrers, zu grossem Neid,
Weil er nicht gönnte, dass irgend ein anderer
Jemals nun mehr Ruhmesthaten
Unter dem Himmel der Erde erwarb als er selbst:
‘Bist du Bêowulf, der du mit Breca kämpftest
Auf weiter See in einem Wettschwimmen,
Dort durchforschtet ihr beide aus Stolz die Fluten
Und wagtet aus verwegener Ruhmsucht im tiefen Wasser
Euer Leben? Euch beiden konnte keiner, 510
Weder Freund noch Feind, vorwerfen
Die gefahrvolle Reise; da rudertet ihr beide im Wasser,
Dort überdecktet ihr beide den Wasserstrom mit Armen,
Ihr masst die Meeresstrassen, mit Händen schwangt ihr,
Ihr glittet über die Flut; das Meer wallte in Fluten,
Des Winters Gewoge; ihr mühtet euch in des Wassers Gewalt
Sieben Nächte ab; er besiegte dich beim Schwimmen,
Er hatte grössere Kraft. Da warf ihn in der Morgenzeit
An das Headoræmenland die See,
Von dort aus suchte er das traute Stammgut auf, 520
Der seinen Leuten Teure, das Land der Brondinge,
Die schöne Friedensburg, wo er Volk besass,
Burg und Ringe. Alles, wozu er sich dir verpflichtete,
Leistete der Sohn Bêanstâns wahrhaftig.’
_Criticism of the Translation._
It would be manifestly unfair to criticize this translation for its want
of grace and melody, because it is avowedly a literal rendering, and a
literal rendering makes no attempt to attain these qualities. But there
are certain things which are indispensable in a good literal
translation. It is imperative that such a translation should be based on
the best text of the original poem. What has Steineck done? He has gone
back thirty-five years and chosen an early and inaccurate edition of a
work that has been five times re-edited, Heyne’s text of 1863! It seems
almost incredible that a German, living in the midst of scholars who
have done more than any other people to interpret the _Beowulf_, should
ignore the fruits of their efforts.
It is unnecessary to enumerate the faults of this translation due to
dependence upon an antiquated edition of the text. Suffice it to say
that when the edition of 1863 was printed the text had not yet been
properly transcribed from the MS.[2]
But there are evidences of an inaccuracy of a different kind that betray
a carelessness utterly reprehensible. The author is apparently unable to
transliterate properly the Old English names. Thus he has Vealhpeon and
Vealhpeo (for Wealhtheow), Ecgpeow, Halbdaene (for Healfdene),
Ermanarich, &c.
In his attempt to produce an etymological document, the translator uses
many compounds such as even the German language might be better without;
such are--Sippenschar (sibbegedriht), 730; Schattenwandler
(sceadugenga), 704; Wangenpolster (hlēor-bolster), 689; Leibpanzer
(līc-syrce), 550. As compounds these may not be offensive to a German;
but the trouble with them is that they do not translate the Old English
ideas.
Finally, it may be asked why a translation that appeals only as a
literal rendering should not be strictly literal, noting its every
variation from the original, italicizing supplied words, holding to the
original word-order.
Steineck’s translation did not advance the interpretation of _Beowulf_
a whit. In point of accuracy the book is not worthy to stand with good
translations thirty years old.
[Footnote 1: See supra, p. 64.] [[Heyne: Relation of...]]
[Footnote 2: See also supra, p. 8.] [[Preliminary Remarks]]