from the criticisms of other students of the poem.

This work is addressed to two classes of readers. From both of these alike
the translator begs sympathy and co-operation. The Anglo-Saxon scholar he
hopes to please by adhering faithfully to the original. The student of
English literature he aims to interest by giving him, in modern garb, the
most ancient epic of our race. This is a bold and venturesome undertaking;
and yet there must be some students of the Teutonic past willing to follow
even a daring guide, if they may read in modern phrases of the sorrows of
Hrothgar, of the prowess of Beowulf, and of the feelings that stirred the
hearts of our forefathers in their primeval homes.

In order to please the larger class of readers, a regular cadence has been
used, a measure which, while retaining the essential characteristics of
the original, permits the reader to see ahead of him in reading.

Perhaps every Anglo-Saxon scholar has his own theory as to how Beowulf
should be translated. Some have given us prose versions of what we believe
to be a great poem. Is it any reflection on our honored Kemble and Arnold
to say that their translations fail to show a layman that Beowulf is
justly called our first _epic_? Of those translators who have used verse,
several have written from what would seem a mistaken point of view. Is it
proper, for instance, that the grave and solemn speeches of Beowulf and
Hrothgar be put in ballad measures, tripping lightly and airily along? Or,
again, is it fitting that the rough martial music of Anglo-Saxon verse be
interpreted to us in the smooth measures of modern blank verse? Do we hear
what has been beautifully called "the clanging tread of a warrior in
mail"?

[viii]