Criticism of the Paraphrase.
In comparison with the work of Mr. Jones[2], it may be said that Mr. Gibb’s paraphrase is fuller, reproduces more events, and follows more faithfully the original order. He supplies fewer explanatory words and sentences. But, on the other hand, Mr. Gibb’s work, unlike Mr. Jones’s, has no merits of style—it is all on a dead level of prose. Thus it sins against one of the laws of paraphrase: that the writer, in relieving himself of the exacting duties of translator, must present the story in a more literary and more truly adequate medium. Mr. Gibb’s is one of the poorer paraphrases.
Indebtedness to Arnold.
At page 280 of the concluding chapter, the author speaks of the history and character of the poem. It will be found on reference to this section that the author is a follower of the views set forth in the edition of Mr. Thomas Arnold[3]. It is probable that Mr. Gibb was indebted to this book for much of his paraphrase, but the free character of the version prevents any decision on this point.
[1.] Woodcuts; two of them are identical with the ones given in the Wägner-MacDowall paraphrase: see infra, [p. 130].
[ THE WÄGNER-MACDOWALL PARAPHRASE]
Epics and Romances of the Middle Ages. Adapted from the Work of Dr. W. Wägner by M. W. MacDowall, and edited by W. S. W. Anson. Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott & Co., London: W. Swan Sonnenschein & Co., 1883. 8o, Beowulf, pp. 347–364, with two illustrations[1].