Talk:Beowulf

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Former FA This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Beowulf article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies

Nice article 4.238.245.162 23:15, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Has Tolkien written a translation or not?

Under Translations it says "Tolkien never made a translation of his own", yet under Derivative works and contemporary influences it says that "Tolkien also made a translation of the poem, which the Tolkien Society has recently decided to publish". Like, hello! Can someone please find out the true answer and fix this?

[edit] Namechecking

Weeding of fancruft is a consistent concern for this article. Unfortunately, the characters of the Beowulf epic simply have too wide a dissemination into popular culture for a listing of all references to these characters in significant contemporary works of art or narration to be possible. There are literally hundreds of such works and characters and cases. And as for selecting only the 'important' fancruft from among them, well, I think it should be obvious how well that sort of subjective logic tends to work on Wikipedia. What needs to be chosen is a small series of references which are particularly relevant to the Beowulf poem. That is to say, reference should be significantly meaningful and important to the work itself, which is after all the topic of this article.

Presently, in many of the cases currently listed, all we have is a case of empty name-checking. This is simply inadequate. This article cannot be a list of every instance of historical name-checking derived from Beowulf any more than King Arthur can be a list of every instance of name-checking of the Arthur legend. The article is large as it is. If someone wishes to create List of references to the Beowulf epic so be it, but there is no space in such an already large article as this one for such a list. Furthermore, the current list is an almost completely arbitrary smattering of references, few of which claim to be anything more than mythic name-checking.

I therefore propose that the list here restrict itself to sources which directly elaborate on the content of the Beowulf legend, and absolutely ignore all cases of name-checking for name-checking's sake. Selection of cited works, as I say, should be based upon relevance to the Beowulf poem. As a counterexample, the article presently states

"Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow: The magical sword Hrunting, which Beowulf used in his fight with Grendel's Mother, is featured in the GBA game."

So far as I can tell, the sword Hrunting has no thematic relevance to the game, and the game has no thematic relevance to Beowulf. This is meaningless and arbitrary name-checking, for want of a name to attribute a sword, and should be rejected. It says nothing whatsoever about the subject of this article. If it belongs anywhere, it belongs in the article Hrunting.

On the other hand, the MUD "Grendel's Cave" appears genuinely to be based upon the Beowulf poem's content. Its content is topically relevant to the article, and the article's subject is topically relevant to this. This is not arbitrary name-checking, and so belongs here. --Yst 21:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

In keeping with these premises, on which no one has posed a view in the last 20 days, I have removed cases of topically irrelevant namechecking, which merely describe a pop culture work having used a word obtained from the Beowulf epic, but lacking any other relevant influence or relevance. Such cases are far too numerous to list here, and the article is in need of more coherent topically relevant material within the limits of wiki article space, not less. If someone wishes to create a list containing the same sort of material, by all means, go for it, but there's simply no space for such a list here --Yst 21:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I'd recommend exporting ALL of this material to a separate article -- it really does not illuminate the medieval poem in the slightest, and when set off by itself, may be subject to some interesting development. Tho' I'd give the article some more respectful title than "Beowulf fancruft" Adamdavis
I tend to agree that this material would simply be best exported to a separate article. I being seemingly at present involved in an edit war involving a recently added citation of the poem being *mentioned* in a movie which is otherwise not related to Beowulf in any way (this is precisely the kind of material that needs to be thrown out all together), I begin to question the practicability of weeding fancruft from this section in any effective or systematic way over the long term. Too many people can't resist the urge to mention that their favourite book/movie/game/flash animation/celebrity briefly mentioned Beowulf at some point somewhere, and there's simply no space here for a list of every time someone mentioned the Beowulf poem in the modern era. We'd have a book, not an article. --Yst 04:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I didn't add the Annie Hall allusion, I merely re-reverted it after your sloppy reversions (see below). I don't feel strongly about its inclusion either way, though you need to make the case that it is merely a mention of the work, rather than, for example, a resounding (and, I fear, all-too-influential) condemnation.
  • Your reversions, as noted, have been unacceptably sloppy:
  • 19:37, 9 July 2006 ("Routine Fancruft Pruning") undid, without comment, my chronological ordering of the items, and included editing as well as pruning. (The editing, IMO, was an improvement, but that's irrelevant to the procedural point.)
  • 20:09, 9 July 2006 ("See Talk Re: Namechecking. Beowulf being *mentioned* in a work does not make it relevant to this article.") also removed Beowulf: A Musical Epic, which does not seem to be merely a mention of Beowulf.
  • You marked a deliberate deletion as "m", which is misleading at best (20:09, 9 July 2006 Yst (Talk | contribs) m).
  • You have violated the Three-Revert Rule (19:37, 9 July 2006, 20:09, 9 July 2006, and 04:19, 10 July 2006).
--FlashSheridan 16:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Wrong. I did not. The Three-Revert Rule requires not more than three reverts to a single article in a 24 hour period. I did not perform more than three reverts. I performed precisely three. At any rate, if you wish to assist in or undertake the task of forumulating a workable basis for the accumulation of pop culture references to Beowulf on Wikipedia, go for it. But you'll have to get over this petty ad hominem quibbling of yours first. I am not your enemy. I am a fellow Wikipedia editor. Communication is necessary, in this environment, if we're going to achieve a worthwhile output of information relevant to the topic of an article on as large a subject as this one. --Yst 21:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This article is terrible

This is one of the worst articles I've ever seen on Wikipedia. Virtually nothing said in here has source citations. And there's not depth whatsoever. "This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed." Don't need to - the article is just noise; it's blindingly obvious why the nomination failed!

[edit] Current thinking

Great article. I had read a recent theory that Beowulf referred to Dark Age events in England specifically North Kent. READ IT. It is written by Paul Wilkinson: http://www.britarch.ac.uk/ba/ba39/ba39feat.html#wilkinson http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1373/is_12_48/ai_53461156

--Dumbo1 00:55, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yes, well I have read it before. However, it does not account for the similarities between Beowulf and Rolf Krake's saga. Wilkinson neither has a theory for those similarities, nor why they moved the setting to Scandinavia.--Wiglaf 11.15, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
It doesn't need to. I agree that there are similarities between Beowulf and Rolf Krake's saga. But that is not proof that they do describe the same incidents, or even that they refer to the same geographic setting. The article should highlight what is currently there, but it should also include other theories/possibilities and state them as such. Beowulf is a complex and little understood document. Its history is uncertain as is that of Rolf Krake, if we really are looking at events happening in 450-600 CE. --Dumbo1 22:37, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Concerning matters such as these, we're talking of comparing stories. Since there is a huge amount of variation between stories, the similarities and the linguistic correspondences between Rolf Krake and Beowulf are enough to convince me that they are at least based on the same original story. Then it depends on what you mean by "proof" which is a rare word in humanistics.--Wiglaf 15:50, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The theory was criticised in the Letters page of the next edition of British Archaeology [1] and elsewhere. I could go on and on about its author but this is not the place. adamsan 21:10, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Transcription

Both the entry on Thorkelin and Beowulf (at some point stated "Icelandic scholar Grímur Jónsson Thorkelin made the first transcription of the manuscript in 1818, working under a historical research commission by the Danish government.". The sources I have says the transcription was made in 1786 (Andreas Haarder, Barry Wilmont) and published in 1815. The Royal danish library also lists this edition as "1815". Rebsamen (p. xi) states 1787!!!

Good find. In the versioning chronology provided by A Beowulf Handbook (UNP, 1998), 1815 is indeed listed as the date of the publishing of the Thorkelin manuscript(p. 341). I presume this to be correct. --Yst 04:18, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Translation

Would anyone be interested in my rendering the fragment from Beowulf into modern poetic English? user:sjc

I find some translation a little bit strange. The name Healfdene, for instance it othervise here at the wikipedia used as Halfdan I belive, as for Halfdan the Black. Either of the varieties should be used to establish conecquence, since its undaoubtly the same name. An alternatice would be a link to Halfdan from Healfdene. Dan Koehl 05:41 Jan 11, 2003 (UTC)

It is a very archaic translation. But I would be reluctant to tinker with the import with the import from Gutenberg because of possible copyright issues. A modern rendering by someone (i.e. probably me) would resolve this. But time is the big enemy at the moment, Dan. BTW the name Halfdan is as unsatisfactory as Healfdene because it also partially conceals the meaning behind the name.user:sjc

Well, I thought the right table is supposed to be a modern transalation? Its not that important to me, and beides theres so far no particulair halfdan to link to, so it hardly matters. The meaning of the word I suppose, i half dane.

Just for my curiosity, in wich way does healfdene clearer reveal the meaning? On runstones in Sweden the enam is most often writen with the spelling half tan.

If the origon from halfdan at all comes from the name Dan, I am very sceptical to the interpretion be a half dane. Its seems like Halfdan and Dan was both used back in ancient times. Dan the arrogant is supposed to have give name to Denmark. (Danmark in Danish and Swedish) but this gives the indication the neame was used before and has its unique meaning, as halfdan.

On the other hand, if Healfdene is more correct, then I think Halfdan the Black should also be spelled in the same way.

(Not arguing with you here, maybe theres something for me to learn...)Dan Koehl 07:39 Jan 12, 2003 (UTC)

By archaic I mean it is in Victorian English, i.e. recognisable to a modern reader with mother-tongue English but with effort. It is not late 20th century English but English as it was written by scholars of a century or so ago.

I happen to read AS and I know that the word for half is healf and I know the word for Danish is (amongst other spellings) Dene. So I know immediately what is implied about the Scylding Healfdene: it is not only a nationalist slur but also an implicit slur upon his lineage and his legitimacy. But if I come across the name Halfdan in an AS text I don't quite know what to do with it. Is it an AS name whose origin is concealed? Or does it mean half a dan? I wouldn't without engaging my brain think that a dan was a dane because it it doesn't immediately correlate at all to either the AS or the modern English. It is an unfortunate bodge, in short, and this is what happens very often when anglicisation occurs. The word for Denmark in English is of course Denmark and not Danmark, although we do have the derivatives Dane and Danish, but unfortunately no Dans.....

The point about this in context however is that not only is Healfdene a Scylding, the name has more rhythmic and alliterative value than Halfdan. Let's not kill a brilliant (if dated) translation's artistic merits . user:sjc

I suppose you are right. The day theres an article about the Halfdan mentioned here, I suppose someone will find a solution for the link. I would actually be interested to know if you have more material translated, I am serching the pieces describing two ancient kings of Svitjod, Ottar and Adils, not really sure how they (or Svitjod) are called anglified. Since they are described and mentioned independantly in Snorre and Beowulf, this gives pretty good confirment about their existence. Dan Koehl 09:24 Jan 13, 2003 (UTC)

Dan, I will see what I can dig out for you but as I said previously, time is the big enemy at the moment. rgds Steve (user:sjc)

Anyone able to translate this into perhaps non-poetic literal 21st century English also? The one on the page seems to have been written by someone who spent /far/ too much time reading Shakespeare. In parts the Old English is clearer than the translation: "Beowulf is min nama." "Beowulf is my name" not the torturous "I am Beowulf named." Or "Wille ic asecgan sunu Healfdenes" "I want to tell Halfdan's son" not "I am seeking to say to the son of Healfdene...". kudz75 01:03, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Indeed, the translation present here currently is problematic, and the page history seems to indicate it hasn't been updated to address issues it raises in an eternity. Its choice of gloss is patently incorrect in a number of places ('syrcan' is not 'harness,' it is the plural of 'syrc/serc' meaning 'mail coat' or shirt' and 'bryttan' is not 'breaker.' 'Brytan' would mean 'to break,' however, 'bryttan,' means 'bestower/giver' - they may be etymologically related, but do not share any part of their respective Old English meanings, as far as I can tell). As well, its author seems to have inserted bits of Elizabethan English at random, and the word order has been occasionally jumbled nonsensically (how the author managed to get the mess that is "Messenger, I, Hrothgar's herald!" out of the simple and perfectly intelligible SVO sentence, "Ic eom Hroðgares ar ond ombiht" is particularly hard to imagine).

I will write a semi-literal translation of this passage for the page, which as a consequence of its semi-literal nature, will not be particularly pretty, but will endeavour to retain as much as possible the original's structure and will focus on communicating the specific meaning of the original Old English vocabulary and concepts present. Unfortunately, creating grammatically coherent or, even more problematically, "graceful" modern English sentences from an Old English source while adhering to the rigours of a fairly literal translation is quite often essentially impossible. The most prominent problem posed is simply that Old English appositive noun and verb phrases, or other phrases which lack an expressed subject, or in the case of noun phrases, an adjacent verb, often translate ungrammatically into Modern English. I have retained an appositive noun phrase ("heresceafta heap") as a somewhat problematic case ("A Multitude of spears") in the Modern English despite its awkwardness simply because producing a fully idiomatic Modern English translation of the phrase would require too heavy handed an interpretive treatment for my taste. I think it's best as it is. --Yst 14:29, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Update: Indeed, I updated the former translation with a semi-literal Modern English translation of my own creation which does not make any attempt whatsoever at poetic flourishes, and which I created solely to serve as a reflection of the meaning of the original text. The translation formerly present, it seems, was a rather freely structured, syntactically confused and generally deeply flawed translation from 1910 which has not stood the test of time at all well. --Yst 17:47, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Even though Yst's translation into modern English is much easier to read, in the Old English version I have replaced the wynn (Ƿ ƿ) character with w for easier reading. If a novice tries to have a go at reading the Old English version, the ƿ character can unfortunately be mistaken for p (due to how some fonts render the character). Also most modern prints or translations (that I have come across) these days use 'w' instead of 'ƿ'. – AxSkov 02:07, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Indeed, I support this further change to the original. The transcription of wynn as 'w' has been standard in modern editions of Old English texts for the last hundred years. I don't see why we should make an exception to that rule here. --Yst 18:59, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion on Beowulf equalling Rolf Krake

  • Do you have any opinions on the alignments of the Beowulf poem and the charcter of Rolf Krake, known from Snorre's Edda and Saxo's Gesta Danorum, amongst others?

I have read the old english texts (in a few different versions, I should say) as found online, and I am struck by the similarities for which I have not yet found any "official" comments regarding this mentioned similarities of the two characters, Beowulf and Rolf Krake.

- I see an alignment of Beo, in Beowulf, as of beorh (mountain, huge rock etc.), and Wulf, as being the basic name, with the Beo-prefix added as a "nickname" of a sort. This corresponds, in my opinion, to the nickname of Rolf; Krake, perhaps in the same adversed way that the Robin Hood companion John is called Little John, although he is supposedly of great statutes and build. As is Rolf Krake, wether the term "krake" means a small being (crow) or some huge built tree or rock, both explanations which I have found to be mentioned as an explanation of the name Rolf Krake. (Accidentally, "krake" in swedish is a synonym for poorly built and weak.)

- I see the description of fighting, and loosing, to a fire-throwing dragon, and the loss of great fortunes in a funeral pyre, in Beowulf to be an adequate description of how a person is burned to death within his house, in a huge fire. This corresponds, in my opinion, very much to the story of how Rolf Krake is burnt to death over a matter of taxes and fortunes.

- The companion of Beowulf, Wiglaf, is most similar to Rolf Krakes companion Vögg, or Wig, who revenges the death of Rolf Krake by killing the brother-in-law Hjorvard who has killed Rolf.

- The description of Beowulf people as Weder Geats, to me has a very interesting association with a known name on the swedish (of today) west coast; where the island of 'Hallands Väderö', in the meaning of county Halland, Weather-island, very well might indicate some former region in Geatland - Götaland, Gothland; the Wedera Geats This, then becomes a very adequate situation given the orientation of geography, naming Hrothogars people (both) West and South-Danes, wheras Beowulf is called (both) East, and at a time, North Danes. An explanation of this, naturally, would be that the Geatland/Gothland territory at times have been incorporated in either Swiorice, or Denum - the Svea kingdom, or the Dane kingdom - whereas the people of West, East and South Gothland originally and basically consider themselves to be 'geats', or goths, or 'götar'.

Feel free to add references, links and your thoughts on this subject, email me at [[2]]

(Wilmer Thomas) 2003 June 18th, Göteborg

  • Hallands-Väderö is first mentioned in 1673 (as Wärögierne). I doubt you'll find many followers to that part of the theory. OlofE 18:29, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)

- And the nouns which get chucked onto the front of the various ethnic group name compounds in the poem are usually extremely arbitrary, based largely on the need to alliterate, and only very seldom on any sort of literal context or ethnographic implications. When it's a "w" that needs to be alliterated, they're the Weather-Geats, when it's an "s" that needs to be alliterated, they're the Sea-Geats. When "Dane" needs to start with a "g," they're the Spear-Danes (gardena). When it's a "b," they're the Bright-Danes (beorhtdena), etc. --Yst 14:15, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] More on Beowulf and Hrolf Kraki

I am quite suprised that this alignment is so infected. For someone who approaches the issue from the perspective of Norse mythology, it seems like a straightforward alignment. There are many alignments within Norse mythology that are undisputed. However, if treated with the extreme demands for conclusive alignment that some demand in this matter, it would lead to the complete desintegration of most knowledge of Norse mythology. The Beowulf and Hrolf Kraki alignments do not only concern events, but also a host of personal names. There were 100s of Germanic names in circulation (this linguistic analysis of Proto-Norse personal names in Beowulf and Swedish rune stones[[3].] is in Swedish but anyone can read the list of names), so the probability that the personal names (and their relationships) would be a matter of coincidence is so low so as to be insignificant. If anyone would like to compare this particular aligment with the variations within uncontested alignments, see Heoroweard, any POV is based on the scholarly works cited.--Wiglaf 07:31, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Just like Balder, err...

Beowulf is just a rehashing of one of the oldest myths known to Humankind--that of Thor slaying Balder... Marduk slaying Tiamat (Chaos Monster)... Khranus

    • "Thor slaying Balder"? OlofE 13:35, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)
      • Hmm, that's a new one to me. I missed that. Thor didn't slay Balder. Loki caused the blind god (I forget his name but will go to find it) to slay Balder with an arrow of mistletoe. Anyway, Balder was a God of Peace, so I don't see how the story even relates. GulDan 19:59, 1 Nov 2003 (UTC)
        • Late reply, but the blind god was named Höðr, the brother of Baldr. 惑乱 分からん 13:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
        • even later reply, but in light of the subject, BALDERS BRTRAYER, was in fact his brother, blind god HODER, whom was persuaded by LOKI to throw a mistletoe spear at his brother, which killed him.

[edit] Middle of which Poem?

I found these sentences:

The poem appears in what is today called the Beowulf manuscript, along with the shorter poem Judith. The text is the product of two different scribes, the second taking over roughly halfway through the poem.

and replaced them with

The poem appears in what is today called the Beowulf manuscript, along with the shorter poem Judith. The text is the product of two different scribes, the second taking over roughly halfway through Beowulf.

(Bold added solely for talk page in both cases.) The difference is eliminating what may be regarded as either ambiguity, or the implication that i assume is an error, that the break falls in Judith. (That's what it says; just bcz B. is the subject of the article doesn't keep "the poem" from referring to the last poem mentioned, Judith. It's unlikely, bcz a break in Judith is not interesting in this article, and bcz the odds are good that any break would fall in the longer poem.)

If in fact it is the poem Judith that is broken between two scribes, someone who knows should eventually correct my false inference by making it read "halfway through Judith." --Jerzy 18:27, 2004 Feb 7 (UTC)

You are right, the break is in Beowulf. Matthew Woodcraft

Someone seems to have added to this a claim about the ages of the scribes, for which I am unaware of any evidence. There is plenty of evidence (in Klæber lxxxix–xci, among others) that the second scribe is significantly more accurate. So I'll be correct this, and adding the line number for the transition.

The manuscript is the product of two different scribes of different ages, the second (older) scribe taking over roughly halfway through Beowulf.


FlashSheridan 19:44, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Christian vs. Pagan

The 'graph

Scholars dispute whether Beowulf's main thematic thrust is pagan or Christian in nature. Certainly, the poem's characters are pagans, but the narrator places events in a thoroughly Christian context, casting Grendel as the kin of Cain. Some theories offer that Beowulf represents the retelling of a classic Germanic tale for a contemporary Christian audience.

is probably trying to convey something valuable, but it is a mess. Rather than fix the parts i can infer the meaning of, to say it clearly, i've left it for someone with the expertise to decide, e.g., what is meant by "a thoroughly Christian context", and who can imagine what other theory than "the retelling of a classic Germanic tale for a Christian audience" is plausible. (But i did kill the word "contemporary", which can add nothing but confusion.)--Jerzy 18:49, 2004 Feb 7 (UTC)

The Christian vs. Pagan debate was old when I was in grad school in the 1980's -- I don't think it's worth worrying about now. It has more to do with issues around 19th-century Romanticism and early-20th-century allegorical studies than the poem itself. Dpm64 23:48, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Picking up on an old discussion here, but I do hope someone is able to shed some light on this. I really like the article a lot, but am puzzled by this:
... the narrator places events in a thoroughly Christian context, casting Grendel and Grendel's Mother as the kin of Cain, and placing Christian sentiments in his characters' mouths...
I cannot recall a single passage from the poem that makes direct or indirect reference to Jesus, which is what the business about "placing Christian sentiments in his characters' mouths" seems to imply. This is one of the things that is so startling about Beowulf: its almost obsessisive focus on God and God's plan, 'coupled with a complete absence of any reference to crucifixion or redemption theology. That the Biblical references are there is indisputable, but it is perhaps misleading to imply that they are references to Matthew, rather than Genesis.
Wouldn't it be more accurate to use a phrase like "Biblical context" rather than "Christian context"? Or is there some hidden Gospel reference in the text that I'm missing? BYT 13:00, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
I added a small passage that mentions this interesting apsects of the poem that still form one of its mysteries.Giovanni33 05:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Leaving out explicit references to Christ doesn't make it not Christian. If you look closely, Beowulf is closely associated with Christ. The most obvious example is when his companions begin to think that he might be dead in the mere at the sixth hour, which is when Christ died on the cross.Arbadihist 06:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image

I have uploaded an image of the first page of the Beowulf manuscript: Image:Beowulf.firstpage.jpeg. It is public domain, and approximately 55k. Should it appear here? I have already used it at Medieval literature (my goal would be that all featured articles have associated images), and so I don't know if it should be duplicated. Also, the original image [here] is much larger and more detailed....perhaps more appropriate for this page than my smaller version? Just a suggestion. Jwrosenzweig 22:03, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The image is fine, but it would be nice if there were correspondance between the page shown and the translation given. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 21:44, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Unfortunately, while the first page of the Beowulf poem is interesting enough, I have to think the choice of its text for the translation would make for terrible confusion among readers first approaching the topic, as the text of the first page deals not with Beowulf the Geat, who lends his name to the poem and to the article itself, but with Beowulf (or Beow) the Dane, whose significance to the poem is merely hereditary and whose name is more likely to confound readers than illuminate issues raised by the poem. --Yst 14:45, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Story?

You know, we really don't cover the story at all (the article really assumes we've all read this somewhat difficult work). We shouldn't be a Cliff's Notes, but a paragraph or two of ploy synopsis really is needed, no? -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 21:44, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Naming

I have been doing some work and added some articles on the people described in the epic. At the moment Beowulf concerns the epic itself, whereas the "person" is treated at Beowulf (character). My gut feeling is that the most common meaning of "Beowulf" is the epic, and not the person. Any opinions on the naming?--Wiglaf 10:00, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

In the Scandinavian original of "Beowulf", the Beowulf figure was Fróði.

Haabert, I see that you're not familiar with Beowulf.--Wiglaf 15:02, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Bee Wolf?

The name "Beowulf" is generally assumed to be a kenning for "bear", constructed from beo (bee) and wulf (wolf). This is undoubtedly the most likely meaning.

Now, my understanding of Old English is laughably poor (at best), but couldn't beowulf also be a contraction of beow (bow) and wulf (wolf) -- i.e., bow-wolf, a possible kenning for arrow, referring not just to his speed but also his "bite" (strength, powerful blow or strike of the sword)?

Old English poems often tend to make good use of double meanings. Could the name "Beowulf" have been an ideal choice because it can be interpreted in more than one positive way? --Corvun 18:28, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

I can find no source for the translation of "beo" or "beow" as "bow" or anything like it. J. R. Clark Hall's A Concise Anglo-Saxon Dictionary, Sweet's Student's Dictionary of Anglo-Saxon as well as Bruce Mitchell's, Mitchell and Robinsons' and Bright's respective glossaries all list no such meaning, the four which list "beow" (Mitchell's small glossary does not) gloss "beow" as "barley" with no other possible translations. MnE "bow" is almost always "boga" in OE texts. --Yst 04:29, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think the translation of Beowulf as a kenning for "bear" is more than an assumption, given the prevalence of kennings and circumlocutions of tabboo deformations for that word in particular? Danielsilliman 10:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm. I'm probably confusing Old Norse for Old English again. I'll try to track down my original source and post it here on the talk page. --Corvun 10:56, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
I do not think we can attribute the personal names in Beowulf solely to Anglo-Saxon. Scandinavian linguists consider Beowulf to contain a mixture of pure Anglo-Saxon names, and Anglo-Saxonised Scandinavian names, e.g. Hrethric.--Wiglaf 07:40, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
Or to put it another way, it is generally a bad idea to interpret the literal meaning of names in Beowulf as consisting unambiguously in their Old English constituent morphemes. With a few exceptions (I think if anyone seriously debates the meaning of "Wulf" they're being a bit obtuse), the meaning of names in Beowulf is open to debate. However, one may also reasonably contend that even if most of these names were at some point merely transliterations from earlier Scandinavian construction, the Anglo-Saxon author might well have attributed them new meaning in their Anglo-Saxon form, where it does not agree with the original. I think it would be unreasonable to assume the Beowulf poet did not recognise that, for example, Wealhþeow could mean in his language "Welsh slave". One need not assume that this meaning makes any profound statement, but one must account for the author's own awareness of the possibility --Yst 21:17, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Missing word?

In the section on Translations, this sentence " Frederick Rebsamen's verse translation is with alliterations and inventive compound words; it includes extreme deviations from the meaning of the Old English text." seems to be missing a word between "is" and "with". Rife? Filled? Teeming?

I have been bold and inserted "rich".—Theo (Talk) 22:33, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Identifiable as a form of the English Language?

"Beowulf is one of the oldest surviving epic poems in what is identifiable as a form of the English language. (The oldest surviving text in English is Caedmon's hymn of creation.)"

This contradicts what was written above, which states that Beowulf was written in Old English. Old English and Modern English are not mutually intelligible. They are two seperate and distinct languages. Just because one evolved from the other, and is the only surviving descendant of the other, does not make them the same language. If Italian were the only descendant of Latin, would that make them two forms of the same language? What is the support for claiming that the Old English language and the Modern English language are in fact only one language? --Corvun 02:18, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Old English, Middle English and Modern English are not seperate and distinct languages; the lines between them are arbitary. They're all English. I think you're overreading the text in saying that it claims that they're one language. --Prosfilaes 03:52, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
The lines between them are arbitrary, I agree. But "Middle English" is just a period of transition from one language to another, the latter being in no way mutually intelligible with the former. The fact that this transitional period is attested is completely incidental. Old English and Modern English are both English -- one is the archaic language of England, the other is the modern language of England. That doesn't make them the same language. I could understand if they were considered the same language for cultural reasons (like the "dialects" of Chinese), but this would seem sort of hypocritical considering how few English-speaking linguists respect the Chinese's wish for their languages to be classified as dialects of a single tongue.
Perhaps if it read:
"Beowulf is one of the oldest surviving epic poems in what is identifiable as a form of an English language. (The oldest surviving text in English is Caedmon's hymn of creation.)"
??? --Corvun 04:33, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
I completely disagree. Whether or not you believe it makes sense, the phrase "an English language" applied here in this way is simply not conventional, and this usage is unheard of within serious English historical linguistics, if it even exists anywhere, which I somewhat doubt. The original phrase is very much in keeping with scholarly usage. All periods subsequent to the beginning of the Anglo-Saxon era in Britain are considered to be a singular English language. One may speak of "Englishes", especially to describe dialectal variation within the English language, but never "English languages". --Yst 12:50, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
Okay, so the scholars are complete hypocrites. Gotcha. I guess that leaves us no other choice but to adopt an HPOV policy for this page. --Corvun 18:16, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
Most scholars are not scholars of English and Chinese. Furthermore, it's not that Old English and Modern English are considered one language in any formal sense, but English is a (meta-?)language in an informal sense, just like Chinese is. And Old English and Modern English are at least related, unlike some dialects of Chinese. --Prosfilaes 02:18, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
Moreover, it is a general principle of philology that "languages" are not distinguished in name by virtue of the degree of their change over time. Rather, a "language" is distinguished in name from its predecessor by virtue of its predecessor's branching into distinct phyla. That is to say, Modern English is designated the "English" language not because it is remotely similar to Old English. In fact, its relative similarity or mutual intelligibility has nothing to do with it. It is called English because there is no need for a distinction between a multiplicity of languages which mutually evolved from Old English, there being only one such language at any point in history. Contrastingly, the Latin of modern Italy is formally designated "Italian" in the present not because it changed so much that we simply couldn't call it Latin anymore. Rather, it becomes "Italian" because Italian is one among many Latin languages in the modern era and there is a need to distinguish between them. --Yst 03:48, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
I understand all this, and though I can't say I fully agree with treating languages like biological organisms, that certainly isn't up to me (average blue-collar Joe) to decide. It just seems to me that two mutually unintelligible languages can both be "English" (Old English and Modern English) without actually being the same language. Though my knowledge of the subject is admittedly poor, I'd always thought of Old English as an English language, not an older form of the English language; and, accordingly, modern English as an English language, and not a newer form of the English language. I guess I don't really think of there being a "the" English language at all. Out of curiosity, is there an official consensus on the issue, or is this a matter of POV? If there is an official (or unofficial) consensus stating that Old English and Modern English are both the same language, is there any significant portion of Academia that still prefers to treat them as separate? Well, I suppose they're always treated as separate languages in some ways, as they aren't mutually intelligible and require translation, but I hope y'all see what I'm getting at. What about the older term Anglo-Saxon, which (to me) connotes Old English being essentially an early Germanic dialect rather than an "old dialect" of Modern English: is it now considered incorrect, used by a minority that feels Anglo-Saxon really is a different but genetically related language, only correct in certain contexts, interchangeable with Old English, or what? I don't recall reading about this on the Old English page on Wikipedia, and haven't glossed any such information anywhere else. Is this just something no-one chooses to worry about the finer details of? Please forgive my ignorance. --Corvun 00:37, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
One more question: Since a language's characteristics are defined by how blue-collar Joes like me use sounds to convey information or express thoughts, wouldn't the fact that most English-speakers wouldn't be able to recognize Old English as a form of English if they heard it being used in an every-day setting be significant? I know I'm not the only one who finds it hypocritical, or at least contradictory, for scholars to treat language in a perscriptivist manner as they do, ignoring how blue-collar Joes use language or think of the barriers between languages but ultimately having no basis for study without such uses and opinions. Do English scholars have any regard for how the average blue-collar Joe like me feels about these things, or do they assume that we're just so ignorant (most average Joes like me think "Old English" means what is more accurately refered to as Early Modern English) that our opinions don't matter? How bad is the ivory tower situation in English language scholarship? Is it getting any better, has it gotten worse, or is it still relatively the same? Please forgive questions more suitable to the Old English article. --Corvun 00:54, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Huh? If you're asking questions, seperate them from the hostility towards academics and the rambling please. As we said, changes in one language across time are not considered to change the nature of the language, and I fail to see why academics should consult the average people on a language that has been dead over a century.--Prosfilaes 07:29, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
What hostility are you talking about? What rambling? What could I have possibly said to warrant such a venomous attack as this? First you say changes in one language across time are not considered to change the nature of the language, then you say you fail to see why academics should consult the average people on a language that has been dead for over a century. Which is it? Is Old English a dead language, or is it the same language as Modern English (which isn't dead)? I don't appreciated being met with this kind of hostility when all I did was ask an honest question. As for why you fail to see why academics should consult the average people -- are you arguing that the people who use, shape, and determine the course of language, who create artificial social boundaries between languages, etc., aren't worthy of consideration in the subject of language? That if the average person does't consider Old English to be a part of his or her language, the ivory tower folks can just arbitrarily dismiss this? There was no hostility or rambling in my question. Why are you being so defensive? Are you one of those haughty ivory tower folks, thinking those lowly, worthless, blue-collar Joes like me nothing more than cattle for your studies? This is exactly the kind of behavior that makes the average person despise the academic community and its elitist sense of superiority. Anyway, thank you for attacking me rather than answering my honest and good-natured questions; I suppose anyone who doesn't know the answers already is too stupid to deserve being answered and has no place asking to begin with. You did answer one of my questions though: the ivory tower situation in English language scholarship has gotten worse, just like the rest of academia. I won't interrupt your precious studies with my ignorance again, Dean Poobah. --Corvun 11:02, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
My intent was not offend; if I did, I'm sorry.
Seriously, though; I can't see your whole post in my edit window, and they're some of the largest on the page. I don't know what you're asking. That counts as rambling. As for hostility, I think "Are you one of those haughty ivory tower folks, thinking those lowly, worthless, blue-collar Joes like me nothing more than cattle for your studies?" says it all. That comes through in your original post.
You seem to want one answer as to whether Modern English and Old English are the same language, but there's not. For the purposes of that sentence, they are one language. For other purposes, they aren't.
You should not be so quick to judge. When I go back to school, it will be to continue my studies in mathematics or computer science, not English. I took one English class and two interdiscplinary studies classes in college, and in no way could be considered part of the ivory tower situation in English language scholarship.--Prosfilaes 11:23, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Manga Beowulf

http://homepage.mac.com/ohkado/kenkyu/beowulf_comic.htm

[edit] line numbers

I'm not sure how that formatting is done on the passage from thhe poem, but would it be possible to only have line numbers every five or ten lines, and even better,on the right hand side? At the moment they're reducing the passage's readability.Harry R 00:00, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I decided to Be Bold. You can always revert it, after all.Harry R 23:39, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow: The magical sword Hrunting, which Beowulf used to kill Grendel's Mother...

Innaccurate. Hrunting could not pierce neither Grendel or Grendels Mother's skin, another sword did. The one forged by the giants, unless I am wrong, because this has not yet been corrected.

Right, except Grendel (I think) isn't killed by a sword at all. Beowulf tears its arm off.

But Grendel doens't die instantly from that wound. Later, when Beowulf is in the lair of the mother, he uses the ancient sword to kill Grendel, who is sitting in a daze from his wound.Arbadihist 06:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Grendel dies of the shock from Beowulf tearing his arm off. When Beowulf finds him in the lair, he is already dead; Beowulf only cuts his head off so he can take it back to Heorot as a trophy, to replace Grendel's arm, which Grendel's mother took away with her when she seized the Dane AEschere. When Beowulf finds Grendel (lines 1585-90) he is licgan aldorleasne, "lying life-less." Also, at line 1257, the poet says that Grendel's avenger (his mother) lifde aefter him, so clearly Grendel is already dead by the time Grendel's mother attacks Heorot. Fumblebruschi 19:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Even so, you'd need morethan that to prove it. Not only does Old English poetry regularly mix up what we see as a linear time span (cf. Dream of the Rood and The Wife's Lament), but when it talks about Grendel that way it could just mean that he's exhausted. After all, Grendel did manage to find his way back. Anyway, it doesn't really matter.Arbadihist 20:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Grendel and orcs

"Grendel and Grendel's mother were the inspiration for the Orcs in his Ring trilogy." Sorry, this sounds a bit dubious, especially saying they were the inspiration. Is there a source for this? -- Arvind 19:03, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

They appear to have been part of the inspiration. "Orcneas" is an Old English word for "evil spirits" online Beowulf glossary, and Grendel is described as one. Orcneas is the source for Tolkein's word orc - you can do some Google searches for the two words to find the connection. Sorry to use online sources only; I don't have Klaber handy. In any event, it might be a bit much to say they were the inspiration.

There is this text from the poem: "Þanon untȳdras ealle onwōcon, eotenas and ylfe and orcnēas, swylce gīgantas, þā wið gode wunnon lange þrāge; hē him þæs lēan forgeald."

And in his letters, Tolkien describes them as the inspiration. If I have time I'll try to get that reference.Arbadihist 06:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ashburnham House

Isn't calling the house's name 'ominous' a little facetious?

It certainly is - should be removed I think?

193.1.172.138 10:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Link to Beowulf (computing)

Perhaps there should be a link to the Beowulf (computing) article next to the one to the hero... Beowulf is one of the most popular cluster systems in existance, and I think deserves a link other than thru the disambig. --Wulf 04:21, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] I do not understand this article

I was trying to read about Beowulf, but it is to difficult to understand. I agree with the first person who wrote...this article is terrible. It told me nothing! I would never recommend it to anyone.

Good Bye! user:68.9.246.45

[edit] Dating

IP user, can you demonstrate your sources for this early dating of the poem? If you're going to include something so non-traditional in the field, you really must cite your source within the article. I've never read anything that dated it before around 650. Carl.bunderson 16:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] We Gardena translation

In the glossaries and translation section, the opening lines are currently rendered in the third person - "We have heard of the Spear-Danes." Someone with better OE skills than I needs to take a look at this, but isn't the grammatically-correct rendering "We Spear-Danes have heard?" That is to say, the story is being told by a Danish storyteller?

No, gardena cannot be appositive to the subject, as it is in the genitive, with the according -a inflexion here. If it is appositive, the line should read "We gardene in geardagum" etc. The only possible literal reading of the line is "We of the spear-danes (gen.) in yore-days (dat.)" etc. --Yst 04:46, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Nope, that would be correct in a literal rendering to modern English, but false to the OE idiom. It is technically possible, given the inflected nature of old English, to make the genitive "spear danes" dependent on "thrym," (Liuzza reads it that way), that is, in addition to the clearly dependent "theodcyninga" but even in verse, the language rarely separates things in that Latinesque way. The more likely (and more comon) rendering is "We (of) the spear danes..."
If you are responding to the original question, then you are merely restating the same point I already made, howbeit absent the explanation for why this cannot be the case from a grammatical standpoint, which I had originally included (the consequent apposition of a nominative and a genitive). If you are responding to me, then you are restating my own (and the conventional) reading of the line as if you were disagreeing with me, which is odd, as you would appear not to be. You appear to have missed whatever point you were seeking to derive from this discussion. --Yst 05:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, you're correct -- I did misunderstand your point. Adamdavis
Thanks, Yst. Like I said, my OE is pretty rusty.

[edit] Translations.

I've added the Morris/Wyatt translation of 1895 in the text, but did not add it to the bibliography, as that seemed to be limited to 20th century (et seq.) versions. I thought it appropriate due to Morris' literary standing at the time. Glacierman 05:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A peer review of two subarticles

I am doing an overhaul of Beowulf-related articles. Two of them, Hroðgar and Halga, have been submitted for peer review. Ideas and opinions are very welcome!--Berig 09:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spoiler warnings

Can someone please fix the spoiler warnings? Thanks -anonymous 68.33.200.244 19:31, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Comics

Can whoever it is that keeps cutting out things from the comics section give a reason for doing so? Antarctic Press is actually running a Beowulf comic, and the Grendel comics do exist and have some ties to the legend. What is the rationale for the cuts? Rabidwolfe 01:58, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Historicity

Consequently, many people and events depicted in the epic were probably real. (quote from the article)

This is quite a statement to make without citing some supporting authority. The preceding paragraph says that the poem blurs fictional and historical elements, that many of the personalities in Beowulf appear in other Scandinavian literature, and that the poem can be placed in its cultural context thanks to archaeological discoveries. This makes it possible, if not probable, that a memory of actual persons was preserved by the poem, many of them part of the common memory of first millenium Scandinavian epic. But I think the sentence is rather too bold as it stands. --Iacobus 06:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. It makes no assertion as to how many were probably real nor does it claim that they were real anyway.--Berig 06:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I have added a comment on this from a published thesis.--Berig 09:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough, good addition. --Iacobus 23:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Misleading statement

The statment It was translated by Seamus Heaney is misleading. I've removed it. The first translation, according to Douglas Short's Annotated Bibliography, was a transcription of lines 1-19 and 53-73 by Humphrey Wanley, who misinterpreted the poem. --Iamunknown 04:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tag removal

An editor has twice removed the tag from "The precise date of the manuscript is debated, but most estimates place it close to AD 1000[citation needed]" with the edit summaries: "Asking for a citation attesting to the date of the Nowell Codex in an Anglo-Saxonist article is like asking for a citation attesting to the speed of light in a Physics article" and "Citing a *universal* concensus among the totality of all scholars and students in the field (i.e., no one doesn't think the MS was authored at a date proximate to 1000AD) is purposeless".

I have to strongly disagree: this is missing the point of Wikipedia's policies. First, not everyone reading Wikipedia is a student or scholar in the field. They should not be denied reliable sources because "everyone knows that". Someone might be about to write their first essay and they will be expected to cite sources. Second: if it is truly a universal consensus then the wording of the article is misleading because it suggests that there are some which do not place it close to AD 1000. Third, this is not a journal of Anglo-Saxon research with an specialist audience with a presumed set of known facts about the Anglo-Saxons, it is an encyclopedia for a general audience; wikipedia policies give as one reason for sources "to help users find additional reliable information on the topic."

Fourth, and most important, is Wikipedia's policies. Wikipedia:Verifiability says "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for material that is challenged ..." Given this, I do not believe that a tag like this should be removed unless it is already covered.

In summary, please don't remove the tag, as I believe it is directly against Wikipedia policy. If you have a suitable source, please add it. Notinasnaid 09:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

And I disagree, on the basis of exactly the same policy. The policy, in keeping with citation policy in virtually any other context, asserts that Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source. The statement that "most estimates place [the date of the Nowell Codex] close to AD 1000" is not challenged or likely to be challenged, because scholarly opinion is unanimous on the subject. If there are any scholars who do not hold this view (that the Nowell Codex was authored at a date proximate to 1000AD), I am not aware of their existence, and so assume that there is no potential for this statement to be challenged. Providing a citation for a statement which has no potential to be challenged is, as I say, purposeless. It is, as well, purposeless from the point of view of someone who reads Wikipedia merely in a hunt for citations, as no given work within Anglo-Saxonism is going to be any more authoritative than any other on this sort of generality. One might as well provide a list of every significant Old English textbook ever written, as any one's as good as any other on this level. Citation of matters neither presently nor potentially subject to challenge is ridiculous, and is not endorsed by Wikipedia:Verifiability --Yst 13:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

But clearly the material was challenged. The presence of the tag is the challenge. Notinasnaid 14:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Since I'm just trying to follow policy, and so are you, I've sought clarification on what the words mean. Notinasnaid 15:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you truly challenging the assertion that the dating of the Beowulf MS to circa 1000AD is the consensus view? Of course, you have the option of taking a preposterous position averse to any and all evidence and views otherwise expressed by the world of scholarship merely in order to be a thorn in the side of editorship if you wish to, but it strikes me as an odd tact, particularly because I very much doubt you truly hold a view in contradiction with the statement in the article, which would thus provides you a basis for challenging it. You argument seems to propose that even though there exists no challenge to this view in the world of writing on Beowulf outside Wikipedia (which I hold to be the case), the existence of a decision on your part to "propose" a challenge as such demands thereby, a citation. This would seem to imply that, e.g., if I go to the article Dog and assert that Dogs are not Mammals, not Canids, and have not been domesticated, my action would necessitate citations supporting each of these facts, as they have been challenged, by me if by no one else.
And so, if you are truly proposing a challenge, which would not otherwise be found to exist anywhere in writing or discussion on Beowulf, opposing the view that consensus supports a dating of the Beowulf's MS to circa 1000AD, I'll respond to that point. But if you've got any sense at all, I have to think you'll do no such thing, just as I won't be heading off to Dog to demand citations be located to verify the Mammalian identity of Canids, as this sort of thing really is mere obstructionist preposterousness. --Yst 21:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I am stating that the tag is the challenge. I did not add the tag. But its existence seems to be the challenge in itself. I did not place it, but can we deny that it exists? Do the editors have the right, under the policies, to ignore and delete the challenge, if we accept it exists? Notinasnaid

This silly argument has gone on way too long. Find a cite, put it in there, and this is over.--Cúchullain t/c 22:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've been for advice on policy and, rather to my surprise, been told to ignore the policy and work for consensus instead. Well, that's good. I'd like to suggest that the wording of the sentence, The precise date of the manuscript is debated, but most estimates place it close to AD 1000. is what invited the tag in the first place. Given that Yst seems to know more about this than I ever will and does not know of any dissent, we can start by removing the "most". And if the date isn't sigificantly debated, how about The manuscript dates from close to AD 1000. Comments? Notinasnaid 19:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC) By the way, the advice was at [4], and there are some comments on the references in this article that might also be helpful. Notinasnaid 19:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I was the one who added the tag in the first place during an edit of that part of the article. If Yst says that it is not needed because the knowledge that the statement is true is so commonplace, I believe him. I am surprised that I caused such a quarrel.--Berig 19:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Let's not call it a quarrel, just a spirited debate about how to make the best encyclopedia. Notinasnaid 20:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] his sword was named

Beowulf's sword was named Adam. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.229.208.167 (talk) 16:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] "converting a medieval piece of literature from obscurity to prominence"

Um, obscurity? Tinker wrote a bibliography of the translations of Beowulf in 1903 which covered twenty different translations, and several paraphrases targeted at schools and children. I'd be hard pressed to consider that obscure.--Prosfilaes 02:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/e/o/Talk%7EBeowulf_be5f.html"