scholarly journals A Comparative Study of Three Modern Translations of the Old English Lines (675-702) of Beowulf

2018 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 66
Author(s):  
Salim Eflih Al-Ibia
Keyword(s):  
Comparative Study ◽  
Old English ◽  
Original Manuscript

<p>In this article, I compare the modern translations of lines (675-702) of <em>Beowulf</em> in Seamus Heaney’s 2000 translation, Roy Luizza’s 1999 translation, and Edwin Morgan’s 1952 translation<em>.</em> I begin with Morgan’s text since it is the earliest translation and ends with Heaney’s translation, as it is the most recent one. My evaluations for the three texts take into consideration the syntax, the poetic dictions and the approach used by Haney, Luizza and Morgan. I choose these lines in particular because these lines describe the confrontation with Grendel, and because an evaluation of the translations of the entire epic would be an overwhelming task. The article begins with a brief introduction to Old English structure and typological descriptions so we understand the challenge the aforementioned translators of <em>Beowulf </em>have met as they worked on the original manuscript and be able to acutely evaluate the final product of their translations of the aforementioned lines.</p><p><strong>Keywords</strong>: Old English, Beowulf, modern translations </p>

A Comparative Study of Old English Metre.F. H. Whitman

Speculum ◽  
1996 ◽  
Vol 71 (2) ◽  
pp. 505-507
Author(s):  
John C. Pope
Keyword(s):  
Comparative Study ◽  
Old English

Junius's knowledge of the Old English poem Durham

2001 ◽  
Vol 30 ◽  
pp. 231-245
Author(s):  
Daniel Paul O'Donnell
Keyword(s):  
Early Modern ◽  
Old English ◽  
British Library ◽  
Stanford University ◽  
Anglo Saxon ◽  
Cambridge University ◽  
English Poem ◽  
University Library ◽  
Special Collections ◽  
Original Manuscript

Until recently, the late Old English poem Durham was known to have been copied in two manuscripts of the twelfth century: Cambridge, University Library, Ff. 1. 27 (C) and London, British Library, Cotton Vitellius D. xx (V). C has been transcribed frequently and serves as the basis for Elliott Van Kirk Dobbie's standard edition of the poem in the Anglo-Saxon Poetic Records. V was almost completely destroyed in the Cottonian fire of 1731. Its version is known to us solely from George Hickes's 1705 edition (H).In a recent article, however, Donald K. Fry announced the discovery of a third medieval text of the poem. Like V, the original manuscript of this ‘third’ version is now lost and can be reconstructed only from an early modern transcription - in this case a copy by Francis Junius no win the Stanford University Library (Stanford University Libraries, Department of Special Collections, Misc. 010 [J1]). Unlike V, however, Junius's copy is our only record of this manuscript's existence. No other transcripts are known from medieval or early modern manuscript catalogues.

The Anglo-Saxon and NorseRune Poems: a comparative study

1990 ◽  
Vol 19 ◽  
pp. 23-39 ◽  
Author(s):  
Margaret Clunies Ross
Keyword(s):  
Comparative Study ◽  
Old English ◽  
Old Norse ◽  
Anglo Saxon ◽  
Early Medieval ◽  
Figures Of Speech ◽  
Cultural Roots ◽  
Way Of Thinking ◽  
Modes Of Thought ◽  
Considerable Period

It has been customary, since comparative scholarship in the field of Germanic literatures began, to explain perceived similarities between Old English and Old Norse poetry in terms of their derivation from common cultural roots and closely cognate languages. Similarities in the two poetic systems have been regarded as evidence of the conservation of ideas, figures of speech and poetic forms. Such similarities have then been used to reveal what the ‘original’ Germanic customs, ideas and literary expressions might have been before the various tribal groups dispersed to their historical medieval locations. This way of thinking assumes the persistence into early medieval times of archaic modes of thought and expression wherever cultural similarities are perceived. The Old English, Old Norwegian and IcelandicRune Poemshave usually been considered in this light. It is widely accepted that they reflect a shared cultural prototype. Moreover, their texts span a considerable period of time and yet show significant similarities. The Old EnglishRune Poemhas often been compared with its Scandinavian counterparts to reveal older forms of thought. Andreas Heusler offered a fairly typical assessment: ‘Die wenigen Anklänge an die nordischen Reihen … erklären sich unbedenklich aus einer alten Grundform der Wanderungszeit, als Angeln und Nordleute Nachbarn waren.’

Verbal prefixes in Old Northumbrian

2019 ◽  
Vol 72 (2) ◽  
pp. 192-219
Author(s):  
William W. Kruger
Keyword(s):  
Old English ◽  
Proper Treatment ◽  
Correct Treatment ◽  
Verbal Prefixes ◽  
Original Manuscript ◽  
Source Data ◽  
Primary Reference ◽  
Proper Analysis

Abstract In late Old English dialects, adverbial elements are frequently morphologically ambiguous (independent words, clitics, verbal prefixes, etc.), and an important facet of the proper treatment of these items is the quality of source-data in different texts. This paper examines the usage of three adverbial/prepositional elements in the Northumbrian Lindisfarne Glosses: eft ‘again, after’, ymb ‘around’, and ofer ‘over’. Skeat (1871–87), whose transcription of the original manuscript is the primary reference for research on the Glosses, frequently transcribes these items as prefixes, alongside other OE prefixes like ge-, a-, for-, and be-. However, Skeat also deviates from this pattern in many cases, leaving their proper analysis uncertain. Nevertheless, various works (e.g., Cook 1894; Bosworth 2011), have indeed taken these items to be prefixes. I follow Fernández-Cuesta (2016) in revisiting the original Lindisfarne manuscript to determine the correct treatment of these items, concluding that eft and ofer should not be analyzed as prefixes in the manuscript, while ymb should have prefix status.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document