Part 8 (1/2)
4408 (2201), _hilde hlemmum_ (MS. misread in a footnote.
Emendation unnecessary).
At line 2218 the MS., badly mutilated at this point, reads,
_... slaepende be syre ... de eofes craefte._
In Thorpe's edition the line reads (4443),
_... slaepende be fire, fyrena hyrde eofes craefte._
Not only does he fail to state that he has changed MS. _sy_ to _fi_, but he gives no indication that for the words _fyrena hyrde_ there is no room in the MS., and that the reading is entirely of his own making.
In order to afford a comparative estimate of the work of Thorpe and Kemble, I append the texts of each as they appear at what is now line 2000[3].
THORPE. KEMBLE.
aet is undyrne, ? is un-dyrne, dryhten Higelac, dryhten Hige-lac, (uncer) gemeting ... ge-meting monegum fyra, monegu fira hwylce (orleg)-hwil 5 hwylce ... hwil uncer Grendles uncer Grendles wear on am w.a.n.ge, wear on w.a.n.ge, aer he worna fela aer he worna fela Sige-Scyldingum sige-(Scyl)dingum sorge gefremede, 10 sorge ge-fremede, yrme to aldre. yrm(o) to aldre; Ic aet eall gewraec, ic eall ge-wraec, swa ne gylpan earf swa (ne) gylpan earf Grendles maga Grendeles maga (?nig) ofer eoran 15 (?nig) ofer eoran uht-hlem one, uht-hlem one, se e lengest leofa (se e) lengest leofa laan cynnes. ladan cynnes, F?r-bifongen, ... (f?r)-bi-fongen.
These selections give a good basis for judging the merits and defects of Thorpe's edition. Thorpe is seen to have the advantage in deciphering certain parts of the text, see e.g. lines 9, 11, 17. On the other hand, Kemble is far more conscientious. Thus at line 13 Thorpe reads _ne_ as if it were found in the MS. It is not there, and Kemble is right in inclosing the letters in parentheses. The same thing is true of _F?r_ in line 19, and Gren{dl}es in line 14. Thorpe's emendations in lines 3 and 5 are an advance on Kemble, and are still retained in the text. But Thorpe might have followed Kemble's punctuation in 18 and 19 to his advantage.
EXTRACT.
VIII.
Hunferth spake, Ecglaf's son, who at {the} feet sat of {the} Scyldings' lord; unbound {a} hostile speech.
To him was {the} voyage of Beowulf, {the} bold sea-farer, {a} great displeasure; because he grudged 1010 that any other man ever more glories of mid-earth held under heaven than himself: 'Art thou the Beowulf who with Breca strove on {the} wide sea, in {a} swimming strife, where ye from pride 1020 tempted {the} fords, and for foolish vaunt in {the} deep water ventured {your} lives?
Nor you any man, nor friend nor foe, might blame {for your} sorrowful voyage, when on {the} sea ye row'd, when ye {the} ocean-stream, 1030 with {your} arms deck'd, measur'd {the} sea-ways, with {your} hands vibrated {them}, glided o'er {the} main; ocean boil'd with waves, with winter's fury: ye on {the} water's domain, {for} seven nights toil'd.
He thee in swimming overcame, {he} had more strength, 1040 when him at morning tide, on to Heatho-raemes {the} sea bore up; whence he sought {his} dear country, {the} beloved of his people, {the} Brondings' land, {his} fair, peaceful burgh, where he {a} people own'd, {a} burgh and rings. 1050 All {his} promise to thee Beanstan's son truly fulfil'd.
_Criticism of the Translation._
This being a strictly literal translation, the reader is referred to the sections on the text for a valuation and criticism. It is a question whether there was need for another literal rendering in England at this time. Kemble's translation was not yet out of date, and with Thorpe's new glossary the student had a sufficient apparatus for the interpretation of the poem.
Some German scholars have discovered that the short lines in which Thorpe's translation is couched are imitative of the Old English measure. I am unable to agree with them. Probably any short-line translation would _ipso facto_ a.s.sume a choppiness not dissimilar to the Old English, and probably plenty of lines could be discovered which correspond well enough to the 'five types,' but the agreement seems purely fortuitous. It is quite unlikely that Thorpe intended any imitation.
_Influence of Thorpe's Edition._
The influence of this edition has been considerable. It was the princ.i.p.al authority used by Grein[4] and Heyne[5] in constructing their texts. Thus its influence was felt in all texts down to the publication of the Zupitza _Autotypes_ (1882). Thomas Arnold[6] copied the text almost word for word.
[Footnote 1: See supra, p. 33.] [[Kemble]]
[Footnote 2: The numbers in parentheses are those of Wyatt's text.]
[Footnote 3: Line 3995 in Kemble; 4004 in Thorpe.]