Beowulf
I shall write you something special tonight. This is because I am not going to any societies and I may as well make some nice, interesting notes on Beowulf.
My first question regards Howell Chickering's essay "Heaneywulf" in which he wrote Heaney partakes in "bad cultural and linguistic history." By including numerous "Ulsterisms" (Irish words) he alienates the majority of his english-reading audience; for these need to be translated into modern english. By stamping his Irish identity on the translation, it is not a word-for-word or even a sense-for-sense rendering of the Old English poem, but needlessly self-indulgent. As a result, it is misleading to a young generation of students who may see Irish and English combined in Old English. Considering that the original Beowulf contained no Irish words whatsoever, it is historically inaccurate.
Chickering challenges Heaney's seemingly contradictory use of the word "Bawn." Bawn, according to the Oxford English dictionary, is an Elizabethan word that means, "A fortified enclosure, enceinte, or circumvallation; the fortified court or outwork of a castle." Heaney applies this word in relation to Heoret sitting in Hrothgar before Grendel attacks. Even more inflammatory, he compares it to Edmund Spenser reciting to Sir Walter Raleigh before the Irish burn and drive them out of Kilcolman Castle. Spenser was basically a jerk who cantered off to Ireland for wealth at the expense of disposessing the Irish of their rightful land. In his essay "A View on the Present Day of Ireland," he advocates violence in order to destroy the customs and native language of Ireland. So in comparing Hrothgar to Raleigh and Heoret to a "bawn" then what is Heaney suggesting? That he is on Grendel's side? That Beowulf and his comrades are oppressive, intolerant, opportunistic fiends who want to destroy the ancient, powerful forces of Grendel? No, he claims the opposite: he is marrying both his complex Irish heritage with Old English, he is unifying the differences between their cultures. Yet such a bungled allegory of "unification" seems entirely incoherent. Chickering puts this down to Heaney's obsession with intergrating this translation of Beowulf into his own literary corpus: we are no longer reading Beowulf but Heaneywulf.
Personally I do not believe the Ulsterisms exclude a large community of readers from the poem. Afterall, this is Heaney's translation and he has every right to incorporate his own culture and heritage into his "work". As Chickering rightly puts it, a poet should write for himself before he writes for anyone else. There is a lot more to Heaney's translation than the Ulsterisms and unless the translator incorporates some of his personality into the work, then it will probably be plodding, uncreative and unsuccessful. By Heaney intertwining his heritage into his work, he gives the work a distinct and personal feel that only serves to make it more compelling.
My next question is in regard to Chickering's assertion that "[An] important factor is the persistent genetic fallacy that mistakes remote historical continuity between Old English and Modern English as an indication of their essential identity, when in reality a whole millenium separates two culturally and linguistically." Now I can sympathise with this view; not owning an inherent duty and sense to old English heritage (and if I do, it is possibly negative), obsession with past identity of 'past times,' especially when inaccurate, is baffling. Yet that is possible beside the point. If more than a "millenium" parts Old and Modern English, then how does one accurately render the old to the new without imposing the Modern onto the Old, not only in meaning, but also in relation to literary effects? The common features of "alliteration, parataxis and nominal compounding" used in Old English poetry are also applied to Modern English Poetry. Hence the temptation is to diverge from the 'faithful' poetic devices of Old English are mutilated into order to suit Modern English translations. This causes a great deal of discrepancy and controversy amongst translators squabbling over the "true" version.
If I could magically Beowulf in Old English, I think I would need a jolly good understanding of the times. It is literally more accurate than anything Heaney or Morris could translate -- naturally. On the other hand, since there are many words that only exist in Beowulf, I would not be able to escape my literary heritage. Therefore no matter how accurate the original version may be, I certainly don't trust my own ability to translate it well. Factors such as history, context, modern concepts of poetry and its uses, "anon's" culture and motivations would all have to be taken into account. However the main problem is that we simply do not know much about Anonymous. At all.
Ok, for some reason the sheet is asking me who wrote Beowulf from my edition. The answer would of course be Seamus Heaney. http://images-eu.amazon.com/images/P/0571203760.02.LZZZZZZZ.jpg The word "anonymous" fails to appear anywhere on the cover. The first words we are drawn to are "Seamus Heaney," the second word, "Beowulf." Hence we presume Beowulf was written by Seamus Heaney unless we had the specific knowledge that Beowulf was indeed written by anonymous (who would, according to Virginia, probably be female).
Beowulf can also be translated, quite successfully I might add, into comic books. It suddenly poses the question: what can pass as a translation? Are these comic books just as valid as the critically acclaimed translations by Heaney into verse? Why, yes. I think they are quite compelling visual translations. Beowulf lends itself remarkably well to comic-book form. Why? Strong, flawless male lead with supernatural strength and moral goodness? Brave? Noble? Solid? Bigger than the average man? He is undoubtedly comic book material. The poem is also episodic in many senses; big monster comes, Beowulf must destroy big monster. Civilisation in peril? Beowulf comes to the rescue! It has a lot of scope for visual interpretation. Also the characters are very two-dimensional and action features heavily in the plot. Plus it's a bit of a camp setting as well where myth, legend and history all meld as one.
Hmm. Should genre be taken into account when translating Beowulf? Is that to assume that Beowulf falls into any particular genre in the first place? Yes and no. It is not an epic, as one would expect it to be being written in verse and featuring a strong hero, it's not quite fantasy because these people probably did believe in giants and monsters and dragons, it's not quite history simply because it features dragons and monsters and giants and it's not quite a narrative poem. Indeed, what IS Beowulf? I personally believe it is a highly versatile text that can be translated into many mediums. It is so anonymous in genre, style and origin, that it can be anything the translator pleases. Although this is within reason of of course - it can never be romance or comedy unless it's an overt parody.
Looking at the different translations of one episode on http://www.jagular.com/beowulf/mother.shtml, one becomes extraordinarily aware of the versatility of the text. Alexander chooses to write in verse and yet it not archaic unlike what the Morris translation seeks to be. The language is modern and the meter more attuned to modern english, unlike Heaney who attempts to apply the Old English meter to his work. The Arnold translation seeks to be archaic but it's written entirely in prose undermining Beowulf as a poem. In regards to the Chickering poem, one does get the impression of mixed dictions and the pressures on the writer not only to represent his own time's style while also trying to remain 'faithful' to the original spirit and text. As a result, many do become a 'mixed success.' Anyway they all have a purpose to their writing and audience to please. Some of these traslations are reminiscent of modern fantasy books, even children's stories.
The Chickering essay, to give it its due, is called, "Beowulf and Heaneywulf."
Anyway I'm a little tired of talking about this and I have reached the final page.
Hmmm... Maybe I should give up on Hughes and do my essay on Beowulf and Translation. I have just, liek, written over a thousand words on it. :p
My first question regards Howell Chickering's essay "Heaneywulf" in which he wrote Heaney partakes in "bad cultural and linguistic history." By including numerous "Ulsterisms" (Irish words) he alienates the majority of his english-reading audience; for these need to be translated into modern english. By stamping his Irish identity on the translation, it is not a word-for-word or even a sense-for-sense rendering of the Old English poem, but needlessly self-indulgent. As a result, it is misleading to a young generation of students who may see Irish and English combined in Old English. Considering that the original Beowulf contained no Irish words whatsoever, it is historically inaccurate.
Chickering challenges Heaney's seemingly contradictory use of the word "Bawn." Bawn, according to the Oxford English dictionary, is an Elizabethan word that means, "A fortified enclosure, enceinte, or circumvallation; the fortified court or outwork of a castle." Heaney applies this word in relation to Heoret sitting in Hrothgar before Grendel attacks. Even more inflammatory, he compares it to Edmund Spenser reciting to Sir Walter Raleigh before the Irish burn and drive them out of Kilcolman Castle. Spenser was basically a jerk who cantered off to Ireland for wealth at the expense of disposessing the Irish of their rightful land. In his essay "A View on the Present Day of Ireland," he advocates violence in order to destroy the customs and native language of Ireland. So in comparing Hrothgar to Raleigh and Heoret to a "bawn" then what is Heaney suggesting? That he is on Grendel's side? That Beowulf and his comrades are oppressive, intolerant, opportunistic fiends who want to destroy the ancient, powerful forces of Grendel? No, he claims the opposite: he is marrying both his complex Irish heritage with Old English, he is unifying the differences between their cultures. Yet such a bungled allegory of "unification" seems entirely incoherent. Chickering puts this down to Heaney's obsession with intergrating this translation of Beowulf into his own literary corpus: we are no longer reading Beowulf but Heaneywulf.
Personally I do not believe the Ulsterisms exclude a large community of readers from the poem. Afterall, this is Heaney's translation and he has every right to incorporate his own culture and heritage into his "work". As Chickering rightly puts it, a poet should write for himself before he writes for anyone else. There is a lot more to Heaney's translation than the Ulsterisms and unless the translator incorporates some of his personality into the work, then it will probably be plodding, uncreative and unsuccessful. By Heaney intertwining his heritage into his work, he gives the work a distinct and personal feel that only serves to make it more compelling.
My next question is in regard to Chickering's assertion that "[An] important factor is the persistent genetic fallacy that mistakes remote historical continuity between Old English and Modern English as an indication of their essential identity, when in reality a whole millenium separates two culturally and linguistically." Now I can sympathise with this view; not owning an inherent duty and sense to old English heritage (and if I do, it is possibly negative), obsession with past identity of 'past times,' especially when inaccurate, is baffling. Yet that is possible beside the point. If more than a "millenium" parts Old and Modern English, then how does one accurately render the old to the new without imposing the Modern onto the Old, not only in meaning, but also in relation to literary effects? The common features of "alliteration, parataxis and nominal compounding" used in Old English poetry are also applied to Modern English Poetry. Hence the temptation is to diverge from the 'faithful' poetic devices of Old English are mutilated into order to suit Modern English translations. This causes a great deal of discrepancy and controversy amongst translators squabbling over the "true" version.
If I could magically Beowulf in Old English, I think I would need a jolly good understanding of the times. It is literally more accurate than anything Heaney or Morris could translate -- naturally. On the other hand, since there are many words that only exist in Beowulf, I would not be able to escape my literary heritage. Therefore no matter how accurate the original version may be, I certainly don't trust my own ability to translate it well. Factors such as history, context, modern concepts of poetry and its uses, "anon's" culture and motivations would all have to be taken into account. However the main problem is that we simply do not know much about Anonymous. At all.
Ok, for some reason the sheet is asking me who wrote Beowulf from my edition. The answer would of course be Seamus Heaney. http://images-eu.amazon.com/images/P/0571203760.02.LZZZZZZZ.jpg The word "anonymous" fails to appear anywhere on the cover. The first words we are drawn to are "Seamus Heaney," the second word, "Beowulf." Hence we presume Beowulf was written by Seamus Heaney unless we had the specific knowledge that Beowulf was indeed written by anonymous (who would, according to Virginia, probably be female).
Beowulf can also be translated, quite successfully I might add, into comic books. It suddenly poses the question: what can pass as a translation? Are these comic books just as valid as the critically acclaimed translations by Heaney into verse? Why, yes. I think they are quite compelling visual translations. Beowulf lends itself remarkably well to comic-book form. Why? Strong, flawless male lead with supernatural strength and moral goodness? Brave? Noble? Solid? Bigger than the average man? He is undoubtedly comic book material. The poem is also episodic in many senses; big monster comes, Beowulf must destroy big monster. Civilisation in peril? Beowulf comes to the rescue! It has a lot of scope for visual interpretation. Also the characters are very two-dimensional and action features heavily in the plot. Plus it's a bit of a camp setting as well where myth, legend and history all meld as one.
Hmm. Should genre be taken into account when translating Beowulf? Is that to assume that Beowulf falls into any particular genre in the first place? Yes and no. It is not an epic, as one would expect it to be being written in verse and featuring a strong hero, it's not quite fantasy because these people probably did believe in giants and monsters and dragons, it's not quite history simply because it features dragons and monsters and giants and it's not quite a narrative poem. Indeed, what IS Beowulf? I personally believe it is a highly versatile text that can be translated into many mediums. It is so anonymous in genre, style and origin, that it can be anything the translator pleases. Although this is within reason of of course - it can never be romance or comedy unless it's an overt parody.
Looking at the different translations of one episode on http://www.jagular.com/beowulf/mother.shtml, one becomes extraordinarily aware of the versatility of the text. Alexander chooses to write in verse and yet it not archaic unlike what the Morris translation seeks to be. The language is modern and the meter more attuned to modern english, unlike Heaney who attempts to apply the Old English meter to his work. The Arnold translation seeks to be archaic but it's written entirely in prose undermining Beowulf as a poem. In regards to the Chickering poem, one does get the impression of mixed dictions and the pressures on the writer not only to represent his own time's style while also trying to remain 'faithful' to the original spirit and text. As a result, many do become a 'mixed success.' Anyway they all have a purpose to their writing and audience to please. Some of these traslations are reminiscent of modern fantasy books, even children's stories.
The Chickering essay, to give it its due, is called, "Beowulf and Heaneywulf."
Anyway I'm a little tired of talking about this and I have reached the final page.
Hmmm... Maybe I should give up on Hughes and do my essay on Beowulf and Translation. I have just, liek, written over a thousand words on it. :p