The minstrel tuned his harp and sang of Beowulf’s heroic deeds,
and prophesied that he would conquer and slay the monster of the
morass. This praise made Hunford, one of the courtiers, angry and
jealous. He said it was Breka, not Beowulf, that had won the
golden chain[2]; that the Gothic hero was undertaking an
enterprise that would very likely lead him to his death; and he
advised him to think twice before attacking Grendel. Upon this,
Beowulf exclaimed indignantly that he had won a good sword instead
of the golden chain, and that it was sharp enough both to pierce
the hide of the monster and to cut out a slanderous tongue.
_Criticism of the Paraphrase._
The extract gives a good idea of the author’s sins of omission and
commission. It will be seen, for example, that the tone of the entire
passage is altered. The bit of repartee in the last sentence is wholly
foreign to the Beowulf manner, which is outright and downright--the very
opposite of subtilty. The false manner is evident at once when we
compare the reply of the hero in the original, ‘Thou art the murderer of
thine own brethren, and thou shalt be damned in Hell. Wait till
to-night, and thou shalt see which of us is the stronger.’
The story is, if possible, more garbled than the style. The mission of
the minstrel and the mangled account of the swimming-match have no
essential or artistic relation to the context. They are merely inserted
to add to the action of the piece.
The popularity of the book is attested by the number of editions through
which it has passed. The volume contains also paraphrases of the legends
about Arthur, Charlemagne, and Tannhäuser, as well as the story of the
Nibelungs. These must account for its enduring success; but it is
unfortunate that this, the poorest of the Beowulf paraphrases, should
thus have found an audience which it did not deserve and could never
have commanded for itself.
[Footnote 1: Woodcuts; inaccurate.]
[Footnote 2: A prize offered by King Hygelak for the victor in
the match.]