From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Beowulf is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive. |
|
|
| This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects: |
|
|
[edit] The Beowulf manuscript as a possible Tudor era forgery
I have restored the section regarding "The Beowulf manuscript as a possible Tudor era forgery". It was previously deleted without discussion. The standard for wikipedia is verifiability, not necessarily accordance with orthodoxy. This section meets the standard for verifiabilty.
The theory is unorthodox, but it is not ridiculous. For example, it would be ridiculous to claim that James Joyce wrote Beowulf because James Joyce was a writer and he even made up his own language for another book, therefore he wrote it. Similarily, it would be ridiculous to claim that the Jahwist wrote Beowulf because the Jahwist was a good writer and wrote about great themes and therefore they must be the same person.
It is an accepted fact (from both the orthodox and the unorthodox point of view) that there is no extant reference to Beowulf before about 1700. It could be considered anomalous that this great epic was unheard of until then. This section is an attempt to explain that anomaly. If this part of the article belongs in another article, that should be discussed and if there is consensus, then someone should move it there rather than delete it. If if could be improved in some way, that should be attempted before deletion. If it should be deleted, then there should be consensus. HeWasCalledYClept (talk) 05:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- M.J. Harper is not a reliable source. --Folantin (talk) 10:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- This would come under FRINGE, I think. So far as I can tell, Harper makes his Beowulf claim as part of a larger theory that out entire understanding of the history of western European languages is false. This is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary proof. His book is not peer reviewed, lacks annotation and a bibliography, so is hard to take seriously. As to the specifics, yes the Beowulf manuscript was largely unknown until the 17th century, but that is not in and of itself surprising. If your primary data point is that it is "anomalous that this great epic was unheard of until (1700)", then you are proceeding from a false assumption. Beowulf was not considered a "great epic" from the moment of its rediscovery. For over 200 years, until Tolkien published Beowulf: the Monsters and the Critics, Beowulf was considered a deeply flawed work that was primarily of interest for linguistic reason. It is not surprising, then, that the preceding centuries also ignored the work. Dsmdgold (talk) 23:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- We have a couple examples of Old English written about that time, for one example as part of a multilingual tribute to a king, and they don't read like good Old English; the language just wasn't well-enough known at that time to write grammatically.--Prosfilaes (talk) 13:02, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
But this raises the question - why do we think it's a good work now? If Tolkien hadn't been born, would anybody care about Beowulf today? Just curious. HeWasCalledYClept (talk) 04:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- Scholars would care about Beowulf whether Tolkien had lived or not.--Berig (talk) 16:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- I think that without Tolkien's essay, Beowulf would be still be widely read today. Tolkien's reappraisal was part of of wider movement to examine literature on its own terms, rather than by the critical standards of the day. If Tolkien had not lived, then some one else would have rehabilitated Beowulf, although probably not in exactly the same way. The history of fantasy literature, however, would have been much different. On the larger point though, it is not at all "anomalous" for a work to be unknown for centuries. Gilgamesh laid buried for thousands of years. Nor is it a anomalous for great works of literature to survive in a single copy. The much of Old English literature survives in single copies. Gawain and the Green Knight also comes to mind. In short there is no anomaly to explain. Dsmdgold (talk) 03:03, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- I'm curious whether Tolkien's essay is blown out of proportion because he is Tolkien. It's not true that it was only of interest to the historians and linguists; Chauncey Tinker's 1903 volume The Translations of Beowulf: A Critical Bibliography (or the early parts of [1]) lists quite a few pre-Tolkien editions for children, both fairy tale level paraphrases and editions for schoolchildren. In fact, the online list, if complete, shows that 40s and 50s were slow decades for Beowulf translations and adaptations.--Prosfilaes (talk) 13:02, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'm curious whether Tolkien's essay is blown out of proportion because he is Tolkien. No, it was Tolkien's essay that made his name, not the other way around. --Michael C. Price talk 12:53, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
- The question is not, was Tolkien's essay popular back in the day because he was Tolkien. The question is, is the importance that the essay is currently given magnified out of proportion because the author was JRR Tolkien, the author of the Lord of the Rings? For example, I see
- Beowulf was considered a deeply flawed work that was primarily of interest for linguistic reason. It is not surprising, then, that the preceding centuries also ignored the work.
- as clearly being contradicted by evidence. Works were primarily of interest for linguistic reasons did not get published in the Harvard Classics, didn't see multiple paraphrases for children. Centuries that ignore a work don't see 27 complete translations, with another 23 complete translations in the twentieth century before Tolkien published his essay. There were 48 complete translations, 35 into English and German alone, in the hundred years before Tolkien's essay.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Removed "the only surviving European manuscript dating to the early 11th century."
I removed this passage, because it was a poorly supported claim. The references only confirmed that the manuscript is from the 11 century, but not that it is THE ONLY surviving European manuscript from that time. There are other preserved European manuscripts that are actually older. Some of the many examples are:
