Well said. I was lucky enough to know Heaney, a gifted poet and gracious man, but I nonetheless agree with you entirely: his translation, however resonant, is not the best place to start if readers really want a sense of this Old English epic’s foreignness. In exchange for the accessibility and frankness of Heaney’s version, we miss out on the kind of fruitful alienation that results from engaging with the poem’s distant world on its own terms (at least as best we moderns ever can).
What a gift to have known him! I think Heaney's achievement in his Beowulf can be seen even more clearly once someone has read a more alien version. In that way, Heaney's the perfect translation to read second.
Absolutely, Colin, couldn’t agree more! In many ways it is harder to fully appreciate Heaney’s translation without having first read something verbally and stylistically more faithful to the original text. Plus it makes for a great excuse to read it twice!
I must admit I’ve not read it, Lisa, but it looks intriguing! If you’re keen on the period, however, I humbly recommend the Introduction to Old English by Peter Baker; A Guide to Old English by Mitchell & Robinson; The Anglo-Saxon World by Crossley-Holland (a wonderful grab bag featuring period chronicles, letters, charms, charters and literature!); Old and Middle English: An Anthology by Elaine Treharne (Ed.); and the somewhat dated but enduringly excellent The Anglo-Saxons by James Campbell. I’ve also heard good things about Higham’s and Ryan’s The Anglo-Saxon World, which takes into account more recent scholarship in the field.
J R Clark Hall’s A Concise Anglo-Saxon Dictionary is another great resource, handy when reading works of the period.
I’m sure Colin knows many others, but hopefully one of the aforementioned books will be of interest to you.
Ooh, you tempt me, sir! I don’t think I dare take on another language, though! I’m studying Latin, Spanish, French, and Japanese. But I’m tempted. I do own the Seamus Heaney bilingual edition.
This explains so much that I've only vaguely and confusingly heard about the story of Beowulf! Hearing about Seamus Heaney's Beowulf translation was one of my early motivations for wanting to learn OE -- although I've actually never yet read Beowulf, neither in the original nor in translation. But I think the time might be coming! So this was very useful to point me elsewhere than Heaney, which would have been my automatic first choice. (Looks like Liuzza instead, for me.)
This also has me questioning my experience with the Iliad -- which I've only read in Emily Wilson's translation. That seemed to me excellent, and gave me such a powerful sense of the poem, and of the barbarity. So imagine my surprise just now to be searching for perspectives on Iliad translations, such as you have given for Beowulf translations, and find an Atlantic article that says "[Wilson's] new translation is inviting to modern readers, but it doesn’t capture the barbaric world of the original."
I'm also finding things recommending Lattimore as the translation to use for the Iliad, but I recall looking at Lattimore and finding it difficult and antiquated. (I know, I'm studying Ancient Greek, Latin, and Old English, who am I to find something antiquated? What can I say, I contain multitudes :-) .)
Now I'm inspired to go devour books. Several books! Real books! On paper!
That's great to hear! On the topic of the Iliad, I've been reading the Lattimore translation with my wife lately. I'm not a Greek maven so I'll leave the critique of accuracy to someone else, but I've been enjoying the diction. And, even though it's not in any discernable metre, Lattimore's translation occasionally reproduces the metre of Homer in particular phrases. Highly enjoyable!
I do think that we ought to (we who want to come to understand a poem well) invest in multiple translations and benefit from a more three-dimensional view. It's the next best thing to reading the original. To that end, I think Wilson + Lattimore would be a powerful combination for Homer.
Well, you could always follow Keats and see if Chapman's Homer inspires you! At least it distances the reader from the modern world, but it is also rather lovely. And there's a cheap edition published by Wordsworth.
Chapman's Homer is so much fun! I picked that Wordsworth edition up by accident as a young teenager since I saw "Iliad" and said, "Sign me up!" without looking inside. When I got home I realized that I hadn't chosen the most straightforward translation... but I regret nothing.
For the Iliad, I recommend Robert Fagles’ translation. It is accessible while preserving while (I was told by a classics scholar) at the same time adhering close to the original. Fagles’ translation comes with excellent background information and copious notes (by the great classics scholar Bernard Knox). I would also recommend his translation of the Odyssey. Daniel Mendelsohn (a classics scholar and editor at large for the New York Review of Books) has also just released his translation of the Odyssey which I just bought and started reading. So far I have a high opinion of his rendering and it has received high praise from many reviewers (I do not read Homeric Greek so I cannot speak from that perspective).
I really need to read Wilson's Iliad. I had tried about a zillion times to read the Odyssey over 4 decades and never made it far. Then a friend of mine who taught ancient Greek at a top US university lent his copy to me with the highest recommendation and I went through it in less than a week. I could suddenly see why it's lasted the millennia. Ripping yarn!
His wife majored in Old English (one of her professors studied under Tolkien) and her car bore exactly one bumper sticker: it read "Hwaet!" She was so pleased when I recognized it. Alas, it has peeled off -- think I know what I'll get her for Yule.
I very much appreciate this! We had already chosen Liuzza over Heaney for our translation class (alongside Klaeber) and I’m grateful for this clear and well-written explanation of why.
I've heard that Tolkien produced a translation of Beowulf as well. Given his status as an Old English scholar, I wonder what your thoughts are about his translation(s?).
I've read the Shippey translation and it's much of a muchness with Chickering's, though with some minor differences and different commentary (though less commentary overall than Chickering or Tolkien). Mainly of interest to those who, like me, are themselves translating the poem and want to know how different scholars resolve the cruces and interpret some of the more obscure characters.
That said, I purchased the original version, shortly before he brought out an expanded edition with several shorter fragments of related poems. Make sure you get that one if you do decide to buy it.
I read Heaneywulf long ago when young, found it unexpectedly underwhelming, and only later learned that this was not the fault of the original poem. In addition to all you've said here, it's weirdly overdone in places ("hasped and hooped and hirpling with pain") and all too bland in others ("we have heard of those princes' heroic campaigns"). My impression in retrospect is that the media gushed over it at the time and majority opinion blindly followed suit.
What do you think of Gummere's translation? It can be quite stilted, and inaccurate in places (Hengest gets run through at Finnsburh, as I recall), but at least it makes an effort to recreate something like the feel of the original. It's a pity that Tolkien abandoned his planned poetic translation, which might have improved on Gummere and become the definitive version (his prose translation is only a rough draft that he would have been mortified to see published).
Gummere is great fun, and has the virtue of being in the public domain. His use of archaisms ("athelings", "waxed under welkin") may alienate some readers, while appealing all the more to others. I suspect most readers will know right away which category they fall into!
Actually, a second question: Beowulf is generally regarded as the star of OE literature, but how much of that is just survivorship bias? Had we heard of it before the manuscript was discovered? Is its place among the Great Books due to its influence on the “great conversation” or because it’s just really really good? Might there have been something else that’s better?
A lot of it is survivorship bias. Beowulf is part of a manuscript filled with works on monsters and fantastic phenomena, suggesting that it was valued primarily for its information on trolls and dragons. It had been long forgotten before its modern rediscovery, and although some of its themes are similar to later and more influential medieval works (e.g. Sir Gawain and the Green Knight), its strongest direct influence on English literature is probably via Tolkien on the modern high fantasy genre.
Its main value today is as a fragment of a long-lost, highly refined poetic tradition. But those who actually knew that tradition in its heyday would more likely have chosen the story of Ingeld to represent it (to judge from the comment of Alcuin, who didn't like to see monks taking an interest in heroic tales, "what has Ingeld to do with Christ?") You can get the gist of that story from Saxo Grammaticus, but if there were ever an Old English manuscript that laid it out in all its glory for literary posterity, it must have either been lost in Henry VIII's dissolution of the monasteries or gone up in flames at Ashburnham House.
What Jack said! I'd also add that Beowulf offers a glimpse of a heroic world comparable to that we see in Homer. But it also shows how that world was interpreted by the transition to Christianity. In my mind, that's an important link when looking at the overall sweep of the history of literature, even though the influence of Beowulf itself on English literature was not great until recently.
So, I’ve taught Beowulf many times over the last 20 years and used all 3 of these translations. I love Heaney’s because of its musicality (& his audiobook reading of it is beautiful), but, having studied Old English, I’m fully aware of its shortcomings. He does a good job of introducing alliteration throughout (even if on different words from the original). One line that I recall off the top of my head is “God-cursed Grendel came greedily loping.” Heaney uses the OE stress pattern here on the alliterative words (2 G words in first half of line, 1 G word in second half). Heaney’s translation is also the one included in the Norton Anthology of English Literature (having replaced the previous prose(!) translation in there), which is a reason why so many people are familiar with his translation. I used Chickering when I first taught a graduate medieval course, but I find his translation dull. Now I use Liuzza’s translation in grad classes. I like his. He sticks fairly closely to the original lines, and he does a good job with alliteration. But is it almost too smooth, taking us away from the original?
This is a great overview of the three translations — thank you! On Liuzza, the main disadvantage I see to his translation is that recreating the alliteration in modern English sometimes leads to strange results. But it's fairly infrequently that this happens. I recommend Liuzza to students reading alongside the OE original because the lines match up so closely — as a result, if they get stuck in the OE, they can quickly find their place and get some orientation in the translation.
The Tolkien translation is interesting because it wasn't something that he ever pursued publishing himself. In fact, he's on record as disliking his translation (which is done in prose rather than verse). So as a translation, I don't recommend it — but the commentary, which is adapted from some of his classroom lectures, is more interesting. But it's probably something more interesting to people who have read two or three other translations than to the first-time reader.
Very helpful! I’ve been reading the Tolkien prose translation with my 14yo son and it’s meh. I didn’t want to revert to the Heaney but hadn’t yet put in the time to research a replacement. Liuzza it is!
I have in my library the David Wright translation, unread. It looks like prose and not verse and the first 10 lines didn’t hold up to Liuzza’s which I preferred of your three. Any thoughts on this translation?
I'll keep you posted then! The Wright translation is indeed prose. I tend not to use prose translations in general because in them you lose so much of the appositive style of Old English poetry — this is the quality I likened to twirling a gemstone in the article. You get to hear the same thing redescribed in many terms in the poem, each time bringing out a different aspect of it. This tends not to work very well in prose, so prose translations tend to cut it out. But, all that said, I do like the quality of the prose in the Wright translation. It just ends up feeling to me more like a Norse saga than Beowulf.
I will purchase Liuzza’s in that case and look forward to your update.
As an aside, I thought the gemstone simile was excellent and evocative of exactly what you were communicating. It actually made me hold an imaginary gem up to the light!
I don't think it's a case that its just a bland translation. The problem I have with it is that it sounds like a poem written by Seamus Healey, and sounds nothing like the original manuscript from which we work from. I love Heaney's poetry - but from a translation point of view a translation should sound as close to the original as is possible, even if we have to compromise on the actual structure of the Anglo-Saxon as we render the poem into modern English, with the sound of the text being as important as the language itself! 😎
I agree. I write this from the perspective of an admirer of Heaney and of his Beowulf. I'm very happy it exists — I just wish that it hadn't somehow become *the* translation in the public mind.
I read Maria Dahvana Headley’s new translation a couple of years ago and it was a revelation. Not only was it completely different from the version I read over 50 years ago, but it was fun to read (!?!) and, it finally made sense.
Purists will probably hate it, and all I’ve got to say is, “Dude”.
Headley's version is in many ways a lot like Heaney's: very opinionated, a clear and forceful reimagination — but unlike what has happened with Heaney's translation, where it's become almost canonical, I think most people know what Headley is doing going in. I'm glad it exists!
I am almost finished with the Heaney translation and I would have to say I agree. I first read Beowulf years ago in high school, not sure which translation, and I found a nice copy of Heaneys at a used bookstore and thought I’d give it a whirl. There are passages that are incredibly elegant for sure, he is a wonderful poet, but I do think I prefer a more “vanilla” version, as you say. I appreciate your insights into the translation and that process, it is very interesting!
I would suggest another translation for those who read French - by André Crépin (Emeritus Professor at Paris IV-Sorbonne), in the Lettres Gothiques series of Livre de Poche books (Librairie Générale Française, 2007 4th impression 2016). Isbn 978 2 253 08243 9; €7.10 for that impression. Like the other Lettres Gothiques editions, it has the original text on the left hand page and the modern French translation on the right.
The translation is in excellent, literate French but corresponds closely, line by line, to the original so you can read it on its own or use it as a help to reading the original (or a combination, of course). With French as the translation, you are also less tempted to try to superimpose the modern English version on the Old English in your mind. Small format 17.7x11.0, excellent for keeping in a pocket or handbag.
Thank you for the recommendation! I haven't explored translations of Beowulf into languages other than Modern English, so I'd be very curious to see how it comes out in Crépin's translation!
This is excellent as usual. I was especially happy to see a good word for the Chickering. It's been my favorite translation for some time, and it's gratifying to see someone with your linguistic chops endorsing it.
Thank you, Joseph! I think Chickering's strength is that he syncs up with the OE — but only every five lines. So he doesn't have the unnaturalness of Modern English that comes when you sync up more or less every line, nor do you wander too far from the OE. A happy medium!
This is very interesting, and useful to me. I read a children’s (simplified, prose) version of Beowulf when I was about 9 or so, and thoroughly enjoyed the story. I’ve been putting off reading a “grown up” translation all my adult life, mostly because of the Heaney translation. We had to study several of his poems for our GCSE English literature course (age 14-16), and I just didn’t like his style.
It’s great to get recommendations of translations that *aren’t* Heaney’s!
I hope you enjoy whichever translation you choose! What the abridgements typically leave out is all the interstitial material that I called Germanic Expanded Universe in the article — the more I read Beowulf, the more interesting all those glimpses become. But it's good to have a guide through it, since it can be a bit obscure. Both translations I recommended do a good job explaining this material in their introductions.
The Germanic Expanded Universe has to run into the Marvel Cinematic Universe at some point, and I am certain much fanfic has been written about that. Thor, Beowulf, and Captain America (Steve) hanging out would be fun.
Well said. I was lucky enough to know Heaney, a gifted poet and gracious man, but I nonetheless agree with you entirely: his translation, however resonant, is not the best place to start if readers really want a sense of this Old English epic’s foreignness. In exchange for the accessibility and frankness of Heaney’s version, we miss out on the kind of fruitful alienation that results from engaging with the poem’s distant world on its own terms (at least as best we moderns ever can).
What a gift to have known him! I think Heaney's achievement in his Beowulf can be seen even more clearly once someone has read a more alien version. In that way, Heaney's the perfect translation to read second.
Absolutely, Colin, couldn’t agree more! In many ways it is harder to fully appreciate Heaney’s translation without having first read something verbally and stylistically more faithful to the original text. Plus it makes for a great excuse to read it twice!
What do you think about Peter Ramey’s The Word-Horde? I have bought it, but have yet to read it.
I must admit I’ve not read it, Lisa, but it looks intriguing! If you’re keen on the period, however, I humbly recommend the Introduction to Old English by Peter Baker; A Guide to Old English by Mitchell & Robinson; The Anglo-Saxon World by Crossley-Holland (a wonderful grab bag featuring period chronicles, letters, charms, charters and literature!); Old and Middle English: An Anthology by Elaine Treharne (Ed.); and the somewhat dated but enduringly excellent The Anglo-Saxons by James Campbell. I’ve also heard good things about Higham’s and Ryan’s The Anglo-Saxon World, which takes into account more recent scholarship in the field.
J R Clark Hall’s A Concise Anglo-Saxon Dictionary is another great resource, handy when reading works of the period.
I’m sure Colin knows many others, but hopefully one of the aforementioned books will be of interest to you.
Ooh, you tempt me, sir! I don’t think I dare take on another language, though! I’m studying Latin, Spanish, French, and Japanese. But I’m tempted. I do own the Seamus Heaney bilingual edition.
This explains so much that I've only vaguely and confusingly heard about the story of Beowulf! Hearing about Seamus Heaney's Beowulf translation was one of my early motivations for wanting to learn OE -- although I've actually never yet read Beowulf, neither in the original nor in translation. But I think the time might be coming! So this was very useful to point me elsewhere than Heaney, which would have been my automatic first choice. (Looks like Liuzza instead, for me.)
This also has me questioning my experience with the Iliad -- which I've only read in Emily Wilson's translation. That seemed to me excellent, and gave me such a powerful sense of the poem, and of the barbarity. So imagine my surprise just now to be searching for perspectives on Iliad translations, such as you have given for Beowulf translations, and find an Atlantic article that says "[Wilson's] new translation is inviting to modern readers, but it doesn’t capture the barbaric world of the original."
I'm also finding things recommending Lattimore as the translation to use for the Iliad, but I recall looking at Lattimore and finding it difficult and antiquated. (I know, I'm studying Ancient Greek, Latin, and Old English, who am I to find something antiquated? What can I say, I contain multitudes :-) .)
Now I'm inspired to go devour books. Several books! Real books! On paper!
That's great to hear! On the topic of the Iliad, I've been reading the Lattimore translation with my wife lately. I'm not a Greek maven so I'll leave the critique of accuracy to someone else, but I've been enjoying the diction. And, even though it's not in any discernable metre, Lattimore's translation occasionally reproduces the metre of Homer in particular phrases. Highly enjoyable!
I do think that we ought to (we who want to come to understand a poem well) invest in multiple translations and benefit from a more three-dimensional view. It's the next best thing to reading the original. To that end, I think Wilson + Lattimore would be a powerful combination for Homer.
Well, you could always follow Keats and see if Chapman's Homer inspires you! At least it distances the reader from the modern world, but it is also rather lovely. And there's a cheap edition published by Wordsworth.
Chapman's Homer is so much fun! I picked that Wordsworth edition up by accident as a young teenager since I saw "Iliad" and said, "Sign me up!" without looking inside. When I got home I realized that I hadn't chosen the most straightforward translation... but I regret nothing.
For the Iliad, I recommend Robert Fagles’ translation. It is accessible while preserving while (I was told by a classics scholar) at the same time adhering close to the original. Fagles’ translation comes with excellent background information and copious notes (by the great classics scholar Bernard Knox). I would also recommend his translation of the Odyssey. Daniel Mendelsohn (a classics scholar and editor at large for the New York Review of Books) has also just released his translation of the Odyssey which I just bought and started reading. So far I have a high opinion of his rendering and it has received high praise from many reviewers (I do not read Homeric Greek so I cannot speak from that perspective).
I really need to read Wilson's Iliad. I had tried about a zillion times to read the Odyssey over 4 decades and never made it far. Then a friend of mine who taught ancient Greek at a top US university lent his copy to me with the highest recommendation and I went through it in less than a week. I could suddenly see why it's lasted the millennia. Ripping yarn!
His wife majored in Old English (one of her professors studied under Tolkien) and her car bore exactly one bumper sticker: it read "Hwaet!" She was so pleased when I recognized it. Alas, it has peeled off -- think I know what I'll get her for Yule.
My friend quite agreed with this article, and says her least favorite translation of "hwaet" is "Indeed!"
I found a place that has a Hwaet bumper sticker so she can order her own now rather than waiting.
I very much appreciate this! We had already chosen Liuzza over Heaney for our translation class (alongside Klaeber) and I’m grateful for this clear and well-written explanation of why.
Thank you, Jenn! Liuzza + Klaeber is a powerful combination! That's what I recommend for my OE Beowulf students who want to check their understanding.
I've heard that Tolkien produced a translation of Beowulf as well. Given his status as an Old English scholar, I wonder what your thoughts are about his translation(s?).
Hi Shane! I wrote up some brief thoughts here: https://open.substack.com/pub/colingorrie/p/dont-read-heaneys-beowulf?r=15iogu&utm_campaign=comment-list-share-cta&utm_medium=web&comments=true&commentId=121008097
I'm also curious about this, as well as your thoughts on Shippey's translation.
I haven't yet got my hands on the Shippey translation, but I do have some thoughts on the Tolkien translation, if you'll forgive the link: https://open.substack.com/pub/colingorrie/p/dont-read-heaneys-beowulf?r=15iogu&utm_campaign=comment-list-share-cta&utm_medium=web&comments=true&commentId=121008097
Thank you!
I've read the Shippey translation and it's much of a muchness with Chickering's, though with some minor differences and different commentary (though less commentary overall than Chickering or Tolkien). Mainly of interest to those who, like me, are themselves translating the poem and want to know how different scholars resolve the cruces and interpret some of the more obscure characters.
That said, I purchased the original version, shortly before he brought out an expanded edition with several shorter fragments of related poems. Make sure you get that one if you do decide to buy it.
Thanks for that information, Jack.
I read Heaneywulf long ago when young, found it unexpectedly underwhelming, and only later learned that this was not the fault of the original poem. In addition to all you've said here, it's weirdly overdone in places ("hasped and hooped and hirpling with pain") and all too bland in others ("we have heard of those princes' heroic campaigns"). My impression in retrospect is that the media gushed over it at the time and majority opinion blindly followed suit.
What do you think of Gummere's translation? It can be quite stilted, and inaccurate in places (Hengest gets run through at Finnsburh, as I recall), but at least it makes an effort to recreate something like the feel of the original. It's a pity that Tolkien abandoned his planned poetic translation, which might have improved on Gummere and become the definitive version (his prose translation is only a rough draft that he would have been mortified to see published).
Gummere is great fun, and has the virtue of being in the public domain. His use of archaisms ("athelings", "waxed under welkin") may alienate some readers, while appealing all the more to others. I suspect most readers will know right away which category they fall into!
Actually, a second question: Beowulf is generally regarded as the star of OE literature, but how much of that is just survivorship bias? Had we heard of it before the manuscript was discovered? Is its place among the Great Books due to its influence on the “great conversation” or because it’s just really really good? Might there have been something else that’s better?
A lot of it is survivorship bias. Beowulf is part of a manuscript filled with works on monsters and fantastic phenomena, suggesting that it was valued primarily for its information on trolls and dragons. It had been long forgotten before its modern rediscovery, and although some of its themes are similar to later and more influential medieval works (e.g. Sir Gawain and the Green Knight), its strongest direct influence on English literature is probably via Tolkien on the modern high fantasy genre.
Its main value today is as a fragment of a long-lost, highly refined poetic tradition. But those who actually knew that tradition in its heyday would more likely have chosen the story of Ingeld to represent it (to judge from the comment of Alcuin, who didn't like to see monks taking an interest in heroic tales, "what has Ingeld to do with Christ?") You can get the gist of that story from Saxo Grammaticus, but if there were ever an Old English manuscript that laid it out in all its glory for literary posterity, it must have either been lost in Henry VIII's dissolution of the monasteries or gone up in flames at Ashburnham House.
What Jack said! I'd also add that Beowulf offers a glimpse of a heroic world comparable to that we see in Homer. But it also shows how that world was interpreted by the transition to Christianity. In my mind, that's an important link when looking at the overall sweep of the history of literature, even though the influence of Beowulf itself on English literature was not great until recently.
So, I’ve taught Beowulf many times over the last 20 years and used all 3 of these translations. I love Heaney’s because of its musicality (& his audiobook reading of it is beautiful), but, having studied Old English, I’m fully aware of its shortcomings. He does a good job of introducing alliteration throughout (even if on different words from the original). One line that I recall off the top of my head is “God-cursed Grendel came greedily loping.” Heaney uses the OE stress pattern here on the alliterative words (2 G words in first half of line, 1 G word in second half). Heaney’s translation is also the one included in the Norton Anthology of English Literature (having replaced the previous prose(!) translation in there), which is a reason why so many people are familiar with his translation. I used Chickering when I first taught a graduate medieval course, but I find his translation dull. Now I use Liuzza’s translation in grad classes. I like his. He sticks fairly closely to the original lines, and he does a good job with alliteration. But is it almost too smooth, taking us away from the original?
This is a great overview of the three translations — thank you! On Liuzza, the main disadvantage I see to his translation is that recreating the alliteration in modern English sometimes leads to strange results. But it's fairly infrequently that this happens. I recommend Liuzza to students reading alongside the OE original because the lines match up so closely — as a result, if they get stuck in the OE, they can quickly find their place and get some orientation in the translation.
Would you recommend the Tolkien translation at all?
The Tolkien translation is interesting because it wasn't something that he ever pursued publishing himself. In fact, he's on record as disliking his translation (which is done in prose rather than verse). So as a translation, I don't recommend it — but the commentary, which is adapted from some of his classroom lectures, is more interesting. But it's probably something more interesting to people who have read two or three other translations than to the first-time reader.
Very helpful! I’ve been reading the Tolkien prose translation with my 14yo son and it’s meh. I didn’t want to revert to the Heaney but hadn’t yet put in the time to research a replacement. Liuzza it is!
I will buy a subscription from you to join that!
I have in my library the David Wright translation, unread. It looks like prose and not verse and the first 10 lines didn’t hold up to Liuzza’s which I preferred of your three. Any thoughts on this translation?
I'll keep you posted then! The Wright translation is indeed prose. I tend not to use prose translations in general because in them you lose so much of the appositive style of Old English poetry — this is the quality I likened to twirling a gemstone in the article. You get to hear the same thing redescribed in many terms in the poem, each time bringing out a different aspect of it. This tends not to work very well in prose, so prose translations tend to cut it out. But, all that said, I do like the quality of the prose in the Wright translation. It just ends up feeling to me more like a Norse saga than Beowulf.
I will purchase Liuzza’s in that case and look forward to your update.
As an aside, I thought the gemstone simile was excellent and evocative of exactly what you were communicating. It actually made me hold an imaginary gem up to the light!
I don't think it's a case that its just a bland translation. The problem I have with it is that it sounds like a poem written by Seamus Healey, and sounds nothing like the original manuscript from which we work from. I love Heaney's poetry - but from a translation point of view a translation should sound as close to the original as is possible, even if we have to compromise on the actual structure of the Anglo-Saxon as we render the poem into modern English, with the sound of the text being as important as the language itself! 😎
I agree. I write this from the perspective of an admirer of Heaney and of his Beowulf. I'm very happy it exists — I just wish that it hadn't somehow become *the* translation in the public mind.
From McSweeney's:
*Beowulf, a new translation into Gen Z*
Fam. The Spear-Danes in, like, pre-Boomer days
And the kings who ruled them served courage and greatness, straight facts.
We have heard of these princes’ GOAT campaigns
There was Shield Sheafson, canceler of many tribes,
A high-key shredder of mead benches, flexing all over foes.
This dragger of the hall-troops had come far.
A smol bean to start with, he would glow up hard later on
As his powers got fire af and his rizz went viral. Legend.
In the end, each group chat on the outlying coasts
Beyond the whale road had to simp for him
And begin to pay tribute. That was one absolute unit of a king. I stan.
https://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/gen-z-beowulf
That's better than most of Headleywulf.
Superb!
Brilliant! And an economical rendering of the plot, thanks to the TL;DR.
I read Maria Dahvana Headley’s new translation a couple of years ago and it was a revelation. Not only was it completely different from the version I read over 50 years ago, but it was fun to read (!?!) and, it finally made sense.
Purists will probably hate it, and all I’ve got to say is, “Dude”.
Headley's version is in many ways a lot like Heaney's: very opinionated, a clear and forceful reimagination — but unlike what has happened with Heaney's translation, where it's become almost canonical, I think most people know what Headley is doing going in. I'm glad it exists!
I am almost finished with the Heaney translation and I would have to say I agree. I first read Beowulf years ago in high school, not sure which translation, and I found a nice copy of Heaneys at a used bookstore and thought I’d give it a whirl. There are passages that are incredibly elegant for sure, he is a wonderful poet, but I do think I prefer a more “vanilla” version, as you say. I appreciate your insights into the translation and that process, it is very interesting!
Thank you, James! I hope your enjoy the read of your read through Heaney!
I would suggest another translation for those who read French - by André Crépin (Emeritus Professor at Paris IV-Sorbonne), in the Lettres Gothiques series of Livre de Poche books (Librairie Générale Française, 2007 4th impression 2016). Isbn 978 2 253 08243 9; €7.10 for that impression. Like the other Lettres Gothiques editions, it has the original text on the left hand page and the modern French translation on the right.
The translation is in excellent, literate French but corresponds closely, line by line, to the original so you can read it on its own or use it as a help to reading the original (or a combination, of course). With French as the translation, you are also less tempted to try to superimpose the modern English version on the Old English in your mind. Small format 17.7x11.0, excellent for keeping in a pocket or handbag.
Thank you for the recommendation! I haven't explored translations of Beowulf into languages other than Modern English, so I'd be very curious to see how it comes out in Crépin's translation!
This is excellent as usual. I was especially happy to see a good word for the Chickering. It's been my favorite translation for some time, and it's gratifying to see someone with your linguistic chops endorsing it.
Thank you, Joseph! I think Chickering's strength is that he syncs up with the OE — but only every five lines. So he doesn't have the unnaturalness of Modern English that comes when you sync up more or less every line, nor do you wander too far from the OE. A happy medium!
This is very interesting, and useful to me. I read a children’s (simplified, prose) version of Beowulf when I was about 9 or so, and thoroughly enjoyed the story. I’ve been putting off reading a “grown up” translation all my adult life, mostly because of the Heaney translation. We had to study several of his poems for our GCSE English literature course (age 14-16), and I just didn’t like his style.
It’s great to get recommendations of translations that *aren’t* Heaney’s!
I hope you enjoy whichever translation you choose! What the abridgements typically leave out is all the interstitial material that I called Germanic Expanded Universe in the article — the more I read Beowulf, the more interesting all those glimpses become. But it's good to have a guide through it, since it can be a bit obscure. Both translations I recommended do a good job explaining this material in their introductions.
The Germanic Expanded Universe has to run into the Marvel Cinematic Universe at some point, and I am certain much fanfic has been written about that. Thor, Beowulf, and Captain America (Steve) hanging out would be fun.