¹ Fifteen minutes.

¹ For the sake of correctness it may, however, be briefly remarked that in the notes on line 2157 an emendation attributed to Heyne was originally a conjecture of Grein's, which, though adopted in Heyne's fourth edition, was, as stated, dropped in the fifth, the first of the editions that received Socin's editorial care.

¹ There should be added to this brief notice of English translations the German one of P. Hoffman, first published in 1893, and a second edition in 1900, a copy of which came to hand too late to be included in this paper. The author makes use of the Nibelungen-verse, although “in freer form,” and he tells us that he has tried “to preserve the peculiarities of the original and to stick to the text as closely as possible.” But this is not possible in the Nibelungen-verse any more than in rhyming ballad-measures. The “Fight at Finnsburg” is inserted in the episode of Finn, although the translator thinks it probably later than the “Beowulf.” He mentions briefly the translations of Simrock, von Wolzogen, and Heyne, but says that those of “Grein, Holder [!], and Möller [!],” were not accessible to him, and he thinks that they are “nicht sehr bekannt.” It is strange to find a German speaking of Grein's translation of “Beowulf” as “nicht sehr bekannt.” The rhyming couplets and the Alexandrine movement of the verse do not remind us of “Beowulf,” however accurate the translation may be in reproducing the ideas of the original. The author says that “since Wolzogen [1872] no one has had the courage to risk a new translation,”—that is, in German, for he ignores all English translations.

Since this paper was read, Professor Tinker's Doctor-thesis, “The Translations of Beowulf, a critical bibliography” (1903), has come to hand. It gives some account, with extracts and criticism, of all of the existing translations of “Beowulf,” even partial ones and selections, from Sharon Turner and Thorkelin on. It will, therefore, prove very useful to the student, whether one always agrees with the criticisms or not. It was a work that deserved to be done, and it seems to have been well done. The criticism of Hoffman's translation may be specially noted as an example (pp. 99–103). The brief criticism of my own translation (pp. 83–87) takes exception to the rendering of certain words,—and doubtless these renderings might have been more exact,—and to the prosaic rhythm. I am well aware that the rhythm needs revision, as does the text also in certain passages, but, as stated above, until we have a consensus of scholars as to the text, it is useless to be continually altering a translation to try to keep pace with supposed improvements in the text of the poem. The author is right in saying that my volume “had a flattering reception,”—much more so than I anticipated,—and the continual call for successive reprints shows that it has proved useful to students.

¹ I cannot, however, forbear here one critical remark. While Professor Cook has adopted in his text, line 40, Grein's happy conjecture ge-ēacnung for ms. gearnung, which was followed by Gollancz, his Glossary assigns to ge-ēacnung the meaning of gearnung, “reward, guerdon,” or as Gollancz, “desert, meed,” whereas Whitman has rightly translated it “conception,” a reading that suits the passage much better. This oversight may be easily corrected, if it has not already been corrected since the publication of the work.