Tolkien, Beowulf and the complexity of Translation.

Why Old English poetry is difficult to translate.

Photo by Henry Hustava on Unsplash

As a self-confessed Tolkien fanatic, I admit that the following post was difficult to write insofar as I was not able to elevate the brilliant writer on a justified pedestal.

It thus pains me to write: Seamus Heaney’s translation of Beowulf was better than Tolkien’s.

In my defence, Tolkien himself did not support the publication of his prose translation and commentary. At this junction, we must ask ourselves, why did such a wonderful linguist, and fabulous writer reject a translation of an Old English epic poem that influenced his own work so deeply? Surely if anyone was qualified to write a translation of the Geatish hero’s journey, it would be a university professor who specialised in English, the philosophy of language and semiotics (a polyglot - too)?

To understand the complexity and difficulty of translating Beowulf, there are a few contextualising points to remember.

1. The epic poem is written in alliterative verse. All 3182 lines are perfectly structured by alliterative pairs, separated by a caesura. This poetic form is no easy thing to translate into a modern language.

Hwæt, wē Gārdena in ġeārdagum
þēodcyninga þrym ġefrūnon
hū ðā æþelingas ellen fremedon.

2. To emphasise the Warrior-Kings physical agility and strength in battle, symbolic of his psychological prowess, the poet uses body motifs, metaphors and kennings. The monstrosity of the villains’ body (Grendel), contrasted by the beautiful “bone-house” of Beowulf is brought to life in the original piece through vivid grotesque imagery so embedded in metaphor that it is difficult to dissect.

3. Cases: There are four main cases in Old English, and while the brilliant Tolkien would not have struggled to understand the implications of these cases - it is worth generally noting the compounded difficulty of translating Old English when it comes to word order.

   1. Nominative: tells us the subject of the sentence.

   2. Accusative: tells us the direct object of the sentence.

   3. Genitive: tells us possession.

   4. Dative: tells us the the indirect object of the sentence.

   An example of how this functions within a translation, we can look to the beginning of “The Dream of the Rood”. A wonderful Old English biblical poem that re-examines the crucifixion of Jesus from the perspective of the tree/wood that served as his cross. As you can see from the direct translation below, we need to use an understanding of cases in order to ‘re-jumble’ the subject and objects in the sentence in order for the phrasing to make sense to a modern reader. The first sentence literately translates to the following:

   1. Hwæt, iċ swefna cyst secgan wylle,
      hwæt mē ġemǣtte tō midre nihte
      syðþan reordberend reste wunedon.

   2. Behold, I of dreams best tell will,

      what me dreamed at middle night

      after speech bearers bed remained.

   3. Modern translation: Behold, I will tell a dream I dreamed at middle night, long after speech bearers remained in bed.

      1. As you can see, I needed to focus on the word order so that I am able to translate the sentence in a way that is readable to a modern audience.

Tolkien did not like his translation of the epic poem into prose, despite his prolific ability to translate vivid Old English imagery into the fantastical settings of Middle Earth. As much as I adore Tolkien, and he has acted as a guide through the wilderness of wyrd experiences we endure in Mordor, I must confess: I prefer Heaney’s translation of Beowulf.

Heaney is able to include the alliterative verse within the translation, which in and of itself is an achievement.

“So. the Spear-Danes in days gone by
and the kings who ruled them had courage and greatness.
We have heard of those princes' heroic campaigns.

There was Shield Sheafson, scourge of many tribes,
a wrecker of mead-benches, rampaging among foes.”

This epic poem is an elegy for heroism, the tale of a man whose final defeat came long after his successful conquering of monsters and beasts. It is a tale that transcends contextual Anglo-Saxon England. Therefore, a translator’s ability to make the text as ‘readable’ as possible for the modern audience also needs to be considered when evaluating the effectiveness of a translation. Fagles’ translations of Homer is famously easy to read, and I would argue Heaney’s verse is akin to the skill of ancient Greek translation evident in “Odyssey”. A common argument against Heaney’s translation is its modernity, however I would argue this readability to be is strength. By adapting the epic poem within the same form and tonality, yet appropriated for modern English vocabulary and phrasing, the reader is able to easily connect to the archaic images of blood baths and Geatish warriorship. Tolkien’s prose translation retains much of the beautiful language, yet often more complex sentence structure and phrasing, of the original. Perhaps more ‘accurate’, yet more difficult for the modern reader to appreciate.

Now, of course, we could argue that a more ‘word for word’ translation of the original incites the reader to research and study Old English forms and features in order to appreciate the text. However, in our current state of academic and literary decline, I would argue that it is imperative that readers are encouraged to pick up Beowulf and read the entire epic poem in the first place. After falling in love with the Heaney version, and understanding the epic adventures within a modern language framework, they are then inspired to research and fall into the beautiful, more metaphoric, prose of Tolkien (or other more traditionally studied translations such as Raffel).

Perhaps it is not so much that I think Heaney is categorically better in translation (although the feat of structuring the poem in rhythmic verse cannot be denied as a strength above some others). Perhaps it is that I believe Heaney is a gateway for modern readers into the world of Old English literature - a beautiful, battle-worthy landscape of hero’s and villains that transcend temporality.

A question we need to ask ourselves: is a translation ‘good’ because it communicates the original in a most authentic form? Or because it translates the meaning into a new language that connects more readily to its audience?

I suppose, then, I am able to keep Tolkien on his pedestal, and love him all the same, yet confess a different truth: Heaney’s verse translation opens the door to a world of majestic giants, gremlins and heroes worth knowing today.

Photo by Doug Bagg on Unsplash