Talk:Beowulf/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

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 His book is not peer reviewed, lacks annotation and a bibliography, so is hard to take seriously.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)

While I dont believe it is a forgery, it is worth discussing. However a more likely source for the original Beowulf must be as a Danish import of literature during period of Danish Kings in England. Could have been brought in to please a King like Canute? I have seen this suggestion many times. If that is the case then it may have been written in a language foreign to Britain. A language of a cultured Elite, much as all Roman literature was in Latin. If so, is it all that relevant to the study of true English? --92.3.186.129 (talk) 09:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Beowulf is in the same language as the rest of the writings in Old English. I know of no reliable source that claims that language was not the predecessor to Middle English.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

It is not a "forgery". It would have been absolutely impossible for anyone in the Tudor period to compose an Old English poem of this quality. Or at any time before 1700, for that matter. Philological study of Old English begins in the 18th century only, the first dictionary of Old English was probably the 1701 Vocabularium Anglo-Saxonicum by Th. Benson. Any "Old English" poem compiled in the 18th century would be glaringly obvious as a forgery today. --dab (𒁳) 12:04, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Why do you say: "It would have been absolutely impossible for anyone in the Tudor period to compose an Old English poem of this quality"? Beowulf is sui generis. There is nothing to compare it to. How do we know it's so good? What if all the works from Shakespeare's era, expect for Henry VI, Part I, had been destroyed? The academics today would probably say that Henry VI, Part I is of superior quality. But it's not superior, is it? Now I'm not saying the Beowulf IS a forgery, but you are begging the question when you say that it can't be a forgery because it is really good.

And also, philological study of OE did not begin in the 18th century - Jan van Vliet and Franciscus Junius both studied OE. HeWasCalledYClept (talk) 01:35, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

You misunderstood dab's mention of "quality" there. Not the literary quality of the poem was referred to but the quality of the "forgery". Modern philology would have long uncovered any Tudor forgery because the Tudors' quality of their Old English wouldn't have been sufficient. Trigaranus (talk) 15:31, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

So could I infer that you and/or dab may think that Beowulf is not a masterpiece from a literary-quality point of view? HeWasCalledYClept (talk) 05:01, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

%-D You're worse than my girlfriend, HeWasCalledYClept! No, that's not what I meant. Nobody was mentioning the "literary" value of the poem just now (which was a shortcoming of this section that you have since remedied masterfully). I am extremely fond of Beowulf, there are several editions of it in my bookshelf that I've given affectionate ladies' names to, and I even went to see it performed by Benjamin Bagby when he was in town. And I'm sure dab feels the same. What we were talking about under "Tudor forgery" is: how likely is it that a Tudor forger could produce convincing Old English? And, looking at the failure to convince of Thomas Chatterton (a more modern forger trying to mimic Middle English) and his "Rowley Poems", we must assume it would have been extremely unlikely. But yay Beowulf! ;-) Trigaranus (talk) 08:40, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

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:

• 'Brižinski spomeniki' (AD 972-1022): http://www.thezaurus.com/webzine/freising_manuscripts_brizinski_rokopisi/
• 'Zograph Gospel' (11th century): http://www.nlr.ru/eng/exib/Gospel/slav/13.html

huh? Obviously, we are talking about the only manuscript of the Beowulf epic. There are obviously plenty of "European manuscripts" dating to at least a millennium before the Beowulf MS. --dab (𒁳) 11:51, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

You'd have to look in the history for context, but it is at best poorly written in your interpretation, and I don't recall the context helping your case. I interpreted it in context exactly as the person deleting it did.--Prosfilaes (talk) 12:02, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

GA?

This article is very close to GA status, with the exception of a few uncited paragraphs. Would the main editors like to go for GA? Wrad (talk) 02:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I am interested in getting this to GA status. However, as you said, it needs some work before we can approach that. First, could you {{fact}}-tag what needs citations that you see? To me the primary problem is the references: we're going to really need to use parenthetical referencing to sort out some of these page numbers, and hammer out the details before it is going to go much further. When I have some more time, I will start converting references over to this system unless someone else here wants to go ahead and get started with it? :bloodofox: (talk) 03:14, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Tags added. Wrad (talk) 02:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Who are you?

"Grendel dares not touch the throne of Hroðgar, because he is described as protected by a powerful god." Who's protected, Grendel, Hroðgar, or Beowulf? TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 12:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Hrothgar is. It would not make sense that Grendel would not be afraid if the monster was protected. --15lsoucy (talk) 22:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Modern cultural cross-references?

Is it perhaps important, that in Episode 11 of the first season of Star Trek: Voyager parts of the story of Beowulf are part of the story of this episode? I would add it, if I were certain that it would be right. ;)

In my opinion, information of this kind is important, because modern cultural items are useful for bringing such important literature in mind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.218.127.167 (talk) 12:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

It would belong at List of artistic depictions of Beowulf, not this article. Carl.bunderson (talk) 23:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Kiernan

I am happy to accept that Kiernan (1996) dates the poem to the same time as the manuscript, but it does appear as if Kiernan's view is being unduly pushed here, with seventeen footnotes pointing to his paper, his name mentioned in the article body eight times, and an unsourced implication that the Kiernan paper has overthrown prior scholarly consensus. This raises some red flags with me. The article would benefit greatly from an independent assessment of Kiernan's now 12-year-old publication. --dab (𒁳) 11:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Yours truly seconds this motion. Any more recent scholarly works to counterweigh? Trigaranus (talk) 06:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I can't help but think that representing ONLY Kiernan's work for the dating of this poem is a bad idea. Kiernan's extensive experience aside, his date is one of at least half a dozen different dates (and dating methods) that have been proposed for the manuscript. Moreover, his date is extremely controversial; there's a huge divide in OE studies over Kiernan's date, and that should be made clear. For a slightly earlier, but extremely balanced view of the poem's date, Colin Chase's book The Dating of Beowulf (U of Toronto P) is a great summary of all the possible dates and methods (and it includes Kiernan's, too.) Another good place to look is Robert Bjork and John Niles' Beowulf Handbook, as it has a chapter on the complete dating history of the poem and how opinions on the date have changed over time.

People have tried to date the poem on the basis of its language, orthography, the poetic meter, historical relevance, and even "historical appropriateness," so to speak, of the content matter (like Kiernan). They're all reasonable possibilities for determining date, but each one gives a different range for the material.

But more basically, if this wiki page strives for high quality (like that GA reating), I really think that the dating aspect of the poem has to be considered an open debate-- after all, dates for the poem (not the MS) range anywhere from 8th-11th century normally! Representing that debate, if anybody's up to the challenge of looking all this up, would really improve the overall quality! Good people to consider are Kenneth Sisam, Klaeber (though now old and discredited), Leonard Boyle, Patrick Wormald, Larry Benson, and Robert Fulk. I think John Niles discusses the poem's date, too. 160.36.239.132 (talk) 02:11, 15 February 2009 (UTC) Jackrabbit

You are most welcome to register an account here and balance Kiernan's dating. The article is semi-protected so that only registered users can edit it (this is because otherwise it receives heavy amounts of vandalism).--Berig (talk) 10:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be worth providing a slightly wider view of the various efforts at dating the poem -- it's certainly an issue that has long been fought over and remains without any real scholarly consensus, I think. The major handbooks do usually summarize the issue, so it ought to be possible to pull info and references from one of them ... though, admittedly, even the thought of trying to concisely summarize this topic fills me with fatigue and make me think I need some more coffee! One could plausibly write a whole sub-article on dating Beowulf .... which may be why no one has done it yet. :) Carlsefni (talk) 13:57, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

It should probably be an article on its own: Dating of Beowulf, which can be linked to from various Beowulf related articles.--Berig (talk) 14:30, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

And one would want to distinguish between the dating of the MS (which, admittedly, I think everyone since Ker pretty much agrees is roughly c. 1000ish or thereabouts) and the dating the composition (which is sometimes equated with the MS date—c.f. Kieran—and sometimes not), though both topics would usefully belong in such a Dating of Beowulf article. Beside the summary in the Bjork-Niles handbook, there's a nice summary in Orchard's A Critical Companion to Beowulf, too. I looked around to see if I already had written something about this somewhere that I could just paste in for a starter :) but alas! I have not. Something to work on .... Carlsefni (talk) 15:17, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, maybe this could be your first WP article :).--Berig (talk) 15:23, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

fitt

I was surprised to find this expression I had never heard about used several times in the article. As I am one of those rather few people outside Britain who have actually done Old English in college (and, what's more, one of the even fewer people who actually loved it), I hereby declare that if I, in my humble function as Joe the Linguist, don't know an expression concerning Old English poetry, it had better be explained somewhere! For how shall the plebs, if even my omniscience fails, be expected to know? Trigaranus (talk) 05:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Now linked: fitt. --Old Moonraker (talk) 18:37, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

On pronunciation

It says in the article (24 may 2009) that: "The most common English pronunciation of "Beowulf" is /ˈbeɪ.əwʊlf/, but the "ēo" in Bēowulf was a diphthong, and a more authentic pronunciation would be with two syllables and the stress on the first ([ˈbeːo̯wʊlf]).[4]"

It seems to me, that whoever wrote this must have misunderstood. A diphthong is supposed to be ONE syllable, if it's two syllables then it is TWO vowels, and not a diphthong. I haven't got access to the source cited, so I don't feel like I should correct this. But as the text is is now, it doesn't make much sense to a linguist.--Alexlykke (talk) 11:20, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Why is this page semi-protected?

Can someone tell me why this page is semi-protected?HeWasCalledYClept (talk) 01:22, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Story section first?

I think the story section should come before the manuscript section. Most readers are probably more interested in the story than the details of the manuscript. Also that section has photographs and a map which may be informative. I'm going to place the story section first for now, if anyone objects feel free to revert if you like, and discuss here. Fixentries (talk) 19:30, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Sua

In the Beowulf article, it says that the dragon is sometimes called Sua. What's the source?--206.78.50.75 (talk) 22:16, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

There does not seem to be any source cited for that claim. I have inserted a "Citation needed" tag on it, hopefully someone will come along a insert a source (or change the sentence). --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Semi protection

It seems this article has been semi-protected since November 2008. Perhaps it is time to remove the protection? --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:33, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Handscioh

Copied from my talk page:

"Well, there's an old argument, whether "Handscioh" at line 2076 refers to a companion of the hero, or is an alternate term for a "glov" at 2085. Most translators take the former view. DavidOaks (talk) 19:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC)"

So the translation (from Project Gutenberg) that I quoted in my edit summary may have be at fault? What's the remedy, please? --Old Moonraker (talk) 21:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The E Talbot Donaldson translation's pretty standard (used by Joseph F. Tuso in the Norton Critical Edn, NY:1975) p. 36, says "there the fight was fatal to Hondscioh, deadly to one who was doomed. He was dead first of all, armed warrior. Grendel came to devour him, good young retainer, swallowed all the body of the beloved man." Then there's an obscure reference to "his glove" (and "Handscio" means glove, but names often meant something in this culture, and "Grendel" is the nearest antecedent for "his"). If you google "handscioh" (with or without "h") & "Beowulf," you'll get lots of WP:RS articles where the point is argued, but I'd say most modern translations agree with Donaldson. DavidOaks (talk) 21:57, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Beowulf is a very old story 
in about 1000AD, the first 
founded peice in a poem
but it is an anonymous story
in Sweden and Denmark.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.105.78.169 (talk) 20:37, 14 March 2010 (UTC) 

The Beowulf manuscript

Under "The Beowulf manuscript" we read:

"The earliest known owner is the 16th-century scholar Laurence Nowell, after whom the manuscript is named ... It suffered damage in the Cotton Library fire at Ashburnham House in 1731. Since then, parts of the manuscript ... "

Then, eventually:

"The poem is known only from a single manuscript, which is estimated to date from close to AD 1000."

Is this "single manuscript" the same manuscript that the previous two paragraphs have been describing? It's really quite confusing the way the explanation is currently set out; it kind of reads as if a new topic is being introduced here, about a different manuscript. If it's the same manuscript then the text "The poem is known only from a single manuscript..." needs to go at the very start of the section. 86.165.21.213 (talk) 01:31, 4 April 2010 (UTC).

Consensus on Dating

Wikipedia should give the scholarly consensus on important issues, not recapitulate the discussion. What is today's consensus on the date of Beowulf? It doesn't have to be a single decade or century -- maybe the consensus is that the dating bracket is wide. Has anybody got the 2008 version of Klaeber's edition? What date do its editors favour? Martin Rundkvist (talk) 07:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

As the article correctly establishes, there is no consensus. Some say 8th to 9th century, others say 9th to 10th, still others late 10th to early 11th. We cannot report a "consensus" when there simply isn't one. --dab (𒁳) 10:20, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

using named references

The "Kiernan" reference reads

"Kiernan, Kevin (1996). Beowulf and the Beowulf Manuscript. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan. footnote 69 pg 162, 90, 258, 257, 171, xix-xx, xix, 3, 4, 277–278 , 23–34, 29, 29, 60, 62, footnote 69 162. "

This is silly. Named references are for referring to the same page or page range several times over. It will not do to stash such a wide selection of pages into a single footnote and then keep referring to it. This footnote needs to be split into one footnote per page or page range referred to. --dab (𒁳) 10:53, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

There are in fact 16 uses (a–p) of this ref, so they might correspond to the page-numbers, or they may have done so once upon a time. To assume the article passages citing this book have remained in the same order would be equally silly. ―AoV² 10:27, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Merge of The Dragon (Beowulf) into Article

Currently this stub is rather not notable and ought to be merged and deleted or at least redirected to the correct section of Beowulf. Any other thoughts? Sadads (talk) 20:56, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - There are other articles linking back to Beowulf (e.g. Grendel, Grendel's Mother) which are equally notable and which, if also merged, would make the Beowulf article unwieldy. An article on Characters in Beowulf might work better, but The Dragon is a known character in the myth, and should also link back to a dragon disambiguation page.Metabaronic (talk) 21:03, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

So get rid of the unnecessary detail. This article has no information that makes it notable, is even unnamed. I don't think this qualifies it for a child article. Sadads (talk) 21:39, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd argue that a character from a particularly well-known legend is more notable than, say, a character in a film, many of which are deemed notable enough for articles of their own.Metabaronic (talk) 22:33, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Characters in films should be deleted unless someone goes out of their way to collect sources for them, anyway. Sadads (talk) 18:14, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Oppose per Metabaronic. Also the article can be expanded considerably. Scholarship exists to support an article for each separate section if necessary. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:42, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

The problem with the article is that the fight rather than the dragon recieves the scholarship, see This google scholar search. The dragon itself, which has no significant characterization nor name, therefore does not have lasting repercussions. On the other hand, the character of the battle does, and is hardly covered in the main article. Therefore child article should not exist yet. Also, the article has little real need throughout the rest of the Encyclopedia, see [2]. Sadads (talk) 18:14, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see your point. But surely the first step is to either seek a greater level of references and citations in relation to the Dragon itself (particularly focusing on its description and characteristics), or else propose a change to the article title (and possibly also to the Grendel and Grendel’s Mother articles) to ‘Beowulf and the Dragon’. Some components of the article are repetitive of what appears in the main Beowulf article, and should be trimmed.

The problem in my view is that the Beowulf article is of a good length, and that linked, supporting articles are also at least start-class or better. I also think that this article should form part of a number of looking at British and English Dragons more generally.

The Dragon article should certainly be better written (I think most dragon articles suffer from this) and its purpose made more clear (the one liner about it under European dragon does a better job in a lot less space), but I don’t think a challenge to its notability stands up as there is a lot of Tolkein-focused literary research out there which could be brought into play, in that Beowulf was studied and translated by Tolkein, and its fire-breathing, cave-dwelling, treasure-guarding characteristics were clearly the basis for Smaug in The Hobbit, directly influencing the dragon archetype adopted in modern fantasy literature.Metabaronic (talk) 17:25, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The Dragon (Beowulf) could use expansion, and in fact Sadads' google scholar search does have material about the dragon. The article size is another important consideration (I'd intended to mention it, but Metabaronic beat me to it). Beowulf comes in at over 6000 words of readable prose;Grendel's mother at over 2000 words of readable prose. If the The Dragon (Beowulf) were to be included here, then a precedent is set to include Grendel's mother as well, which would result in an overly lengthy article. Also agree that Tolkien's work should be incorporated in The Dragon (Beowulf) as part of the expansion of that page. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:17, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Discussion has been moved to Talk:The Dragon (Beowulf). Any further comment should be made there. Sadads (talk) 19:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Images

I've put up several images for Beowulf at commons:Category:Stories_of_BeowulfSmallman12q (talk) 19:21, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Hroðgar

I've just reverted a good faith edit that substituted a couple of "Hrothgars" for "Hroðgar" for internal consistency and consistency with Hroðgar. Is the eth spelling consistent with the "Names not originally in a Latin alphabet...must be romanized into characters generally intelligible to English-speakers" in WP:MOS#Foreign terms? "Change one change all" reads the edit summary; perhaps we should. Views?--Old Moonraker (talk) 20:58, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I am of a divided mind on this. I interpret the policy as favouring "Hrothgar", but if his page is at Hroðgar, that constitutes precedent and wikilinking and consistency reasons for using the eth. I would choose to use Hroðgar at all times. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 13:29, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Interpretations -- delete Cabaniss stuff

I would suggest deleting the Cabaniss stuff. The interpretation is, to put it mildly, eccentric, and completely off the beam so far as most interpretations go, especially so considering that the Yeager quotation, immediately below, basically destroys the basis for any such interpretation. In short, Cabaniss is indulging a form of special pleading, and is interested not in the poem itself but in the Bible. A noble gesture, but it has really nothing to do with the poem, and should be deleted.24.81.25.127 (talk) 23:41, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, I've since pulled it. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:06, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

UP COMING REVISIONS

This page will be undergoing expansion on certain sections. Our Literature Class will be doing a project in which we will revise and expand on certain sections. we will be conducting extensive research and site properly; our professor Mulready Login name is Redcknight if you have any questions.

Someone NEEDS to revise the paragraph about Tolkien's interpretation of Beowulf. It is flat out wrong. Tolkien's essay quotes various critics, and then criticizes these critics. This article incorrectly attributes the critics' opinions to Tolkien. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.188.6.91 (talk) 03:18, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

UP COMING REVISIONS

This page will be undergoing expansion on certain sections. Our Literature Class will be doing a project in which we will revise and expand on certain sections. we will be conducting extensive research and site properly; our professor Mulready Login name is Redcknight if you have any questions. --Mulreadytoread (talk) 15:28, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I am pleased and impressed with the class project and the work it's doing. However -- these additions absolutely must be cited to WP:RS's, or they will very likely be given tags and in due course, deleted. The scholar needs not only to know things, but to leave a clear trail for others to follow back. DavidOaks (talk) 16:17, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Tolkien on Beowulf

The following sentence is inaccurate:Tolkien seemed to view Beowulf as merely a "half-baked" narrative complete with "beer-bemused Anglo-Saxons"and "inaccurate Christian antiquarian (sic)" In Beowulf: The Monsters and the Critics these statements attributed to Tolkien are actually his quotation and paraphrase of other critics of the poem, with whom he went on to explain he disagreed. I will remove it. --Bradeos Graphon Βραδέως Γράφων (talk) 19:11, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

What about Hrothgar's warning?

I think that it should be said here that Hrothgar warned Beowulf against this. When Beowulf fought Grendel and Grendel's mother, he had his thanes come with him to fight, while when he fought the dragon, he told his thanes to stay behind the bushes and not fight, unless he needs help. Hrothgar told Beowulf after he'd killed Grendel's mother to not be proud, because many forget that their good fortune will ever end, and they'll become reckless, which will cause them to be killed. The specific quote, in Seamus Heaney's translation, is lines 1732-1743,1750-1753 "He [God] permits him [man] to lord it in many lands / until the man in his unthinkingness / forgets that it will ever end for him. / He indulges his desires; illness and old age / mean nothing to him; his mind is untroubled / by envy or malice or the thought of enemies / with their hate-honed swords. The whole world / conforms to his will, he is kept from the worst / until an element of overweening / enters him and takes hold / while the soul's guard, its sentry, drowses, / grown too distracted. A killer stalks him, / [...] because of good things that the Heavenly Powers gave him in the past / he ignores the shape of things to come. / Then finally the end arrives." It was basically a warning to not be proud, and be cautious, basically it said, "you're still only human, Beowulf" which Beowulf ignored, and, well, he died. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikigold96 (talk • contribs) 21:48, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Lazy hyperlinks

Hyperlinking a word should not be an excuse to unabashedly use jargon. It's unclear & looks gratuitous. Like "fitt." That totally destroys any flow. Term not required, should remove.

Scyld Scefing (lines 1–52)
fixed lazy hyperlink, ("fitt") explained jargon, -but remains feeling clumsy, redundant, pedantic & didactic. Needless words are clutter.
69.228.14.23 (talk) 20:08, 12 July 2011 (UTC)Doug Bashford

nowell codex?

the beowulf manuscript is not found in the nowell codex. some angry tween will probably delete this, but this is the reason why academia avoids wikipedia like the plague. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.254.168.176 (talk) 23:01, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Could you explain more clearly what you know about the MS and the codex, and give a source? Colin McLarty (talk) 20:50, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Because, you know, nothing impresses academia like people who can't use capital letters. In any case, Beowulf and the Beowulf manuscript, by Kevin S. Kiernan, as published by the University of Michigan Press tells us that Beowulf is found in the Nowell Codex. If there were any dispute on the issue, it would be found in academia itself.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:56, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Also I am having trouble imagining how that could be disputed even in academia. Whether the Beowulf manuscript is to be found in the Nowell Codex or not is a rather straightforward fact to establish. --Saddhiyama (talk) 14:17, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Seamus Heaney Edition

"In 1999, Nobel Laureate Seamus Heaney's edition of Beowulf was published by Faber & Faber and includes 'Northern Irish diction and turns of phrase.' In 2000, W.W. Norton added it to the Norton Anthology of English Literature.[62]" Citation 62 is dead, but http://www.acmrs.org/academic-programs/online-resources/beowulf-list appears to be the new link. I've never fixed a citation on Wikipedia, so I don't wanna break anything... As well, I may be misunderstanding this, but I believe the Northern Irish diction statement is referring to either an audiobook version or some sort of BBC Radio production. The link says "This translation by a Nobel Prize winning Irish poet is remarkable when heard aloud; Heaney makes it his own by including Northern Irish diction and turns of phrase." Finally, it's my understanding that the all Heaney editions include Old English and (modern) English, face-to-face pages of text. My edition is from 2000, but it lists the first Heaney bilingual edition as being published in 1999. A quick Google search seems to confirm this. Is that notable in this article? (Not familiar with the other translations listed, maybe most of them are bilingual and it doesn't warrant mention.) 68.19.152.90 (talk) 00:16, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Unbridled nourishment

"The latter scribe revealed not only astute mechanical editing, but also unbridled nourishment of the physical manuscript itself.".[28]

Can someone please explain what might have been meant by the second part of this sentence which I copied from our article? Thanks, Wanderer57 (talk) 17:11, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

The Fordham.edu version appears to have an error

There is a link to this version in the Wikipedia article: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/beowulf-oe.asp

It appears to have an error in the ninth line where it says, "oð þæt him æghwylc ymbsittendra" instead of "oð þæt him æghwylc þara ymbsittendra". There may be other errors too. Should the link to that page be replaced with a better online edition? I tried emailing the address at the bottom of the page, but it bounced. Let99 (talk) 06:00, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

What source are you referring to that makes that an error? The manuscript is not in good condition, so some inconsistency in readings is not unexpected, and emendations can be all over the map. It's also quite possible that is an error, and we have no better place to point at.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:48, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

The original has þara in it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Beowulf.firstpage.jpeg Let99 (talk) 06:49, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

This is not an error in the Fordham source, but a different editorial decision. Some editors support emendation to ymbsittendra because the verse as it stands is metrically non-normative. I personally disagree with this decision, but it's one with a long editorial history. --Roidenavarre

Interpretation and criticism

So Tolkien gets three lines and Sonya R Jensen has more than four paragraphs? That doesn't seen right and has now been deleted by two different editors. Why does this section keep coming back? AndrewJFulker (talk) 07:55, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I think we should be told, is the user Sophiejensen actually related to the 'critic' Sonya R Jensen ? It would explain the fact that they keep adding reams of information from this source on the subject. AndrewJFulker (talk) 09:06, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

A few libraries hold copies, but I'd like to see references to peer-reviewed literature. I can't even tell if ARRC is a reputable publishing firm; searches come back to Australian River Restoration Centre or Jensen, so I'm not real comfortable there. I see no way that four paragraphs can be justified by the work of any author unsupported by the response of other authors.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:24, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Quick question for Andrew -- what is it, exactly, that Tolkien says in his 'Monsters & Critics'? He's famous, educated, well-read, articulate, and interesting. But, with regard to this particular work, what does it all mean? Okay, so the poem is worth reading. Great news. But, apart from that, it's pretty thin on the ground. I'm sure I'll be shot down in flames yet again for posting this, but just can't help asking the question. With regard to my dual identity, I have another question. It was a pretty thin disguise, wasn't it? But I'm off the Wiki site now, and have deleted my RFC as well, so that should keep all the 'watchers' happy. Best, Sophiejensen (talk) 02:29, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Sophie. First, this page is a mess and needs a total clean up. Unfortunately there are very few Wikipedia editors working on literature related pages and fewer still willing to take on a piece such as Beowulf. I took a stab at The Dragon (Beowulf) a few years back when it was up for deletion but that was only a quick fix and that page too needs a lot of work. And yes, Tolkien is also mentioned there. I did go to the library for sources on this at some point, and at that time checked out Tolkien as well as a number of other sources, but it was a project I simply didn't have time for. (I'm sure you're aware, we do this as a volunteer basis when we have time). As to your specific question, my view is that Tolkien certainly is important in terms of bringing Beowulf studies into the 20th century; in that sense he certainly has to be mentioned. That said, obviously much good scholarly work has been done since, and that too should be added. I've been busy recently and haven't been keeping tabs on what's going on here, but I'm certainly willing to have a look at your work and at some point integrate it. When I'll have time is an issue though - but if you're lucky someone else will pick up the ball and run with it. If you're interested in editing here, and are a Beowulf specialist, one way around the conflict of interest might be to begin tidying the page and adding material from other scholars, and let another editor read, evaluate and add your work. I think that would be a workable solution. The last time I looked, and I have to confess it was a long time ago, I thought quite a lot could be trimmed back first before developing the article. Let me know what you think. Just so you know, I'm very busy and may not respond immediately to any posts, but you can always leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks, Truthkeeper (talk) 02:49, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree that this article needs nothing less than a total rewrite. It actually wouldn't be too difficult of a thing to do, but it would take some time invested. I have a laundry list of things to do around here, but would love to see this happen, and will eventually do it if someone else doesn't. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:58, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Post deleted in the interests of my privacy. Sophiejensen (talk) 01:19, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Merge Proposal

It has been suggested in April 2012 that Beowulf and Hrólf Kraki be merged into the section Sources and analogues of this article. Indeed, the merge makes sense and would help clarifying facts, theories about sources and resemblances by providing their context. It can also be merged into Hrólf Kraki in the the first section of the article (Beowulf).

---

Merger Vote

• Support, as said above. --Caleb Crabb 15:02, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support, makes sense. Trigaranus (talk) 16:19, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose for now. The Beowulf and Hrólf Kraki isn't a great page, needs clean up and at the moment no reason to bring all that text here. But I'd like to review both pages later when I have more time and return to make a better recommendation. It's possible that the Beowulf and Hrólf Kraki page can be trimmed significantly and then only a small part brought to be mentioned here. Truthkeeper (talk) 16:31, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support (throwing my vote late in the game) Icarus of old (talk) 05:11, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
• I've added a phrase to the text of the article, pointing to Hrólf_Kraki#Beowulf, which I think is an appropriate place for now--it's not a very happening topic in Beowulf scholarship, and that article, and the related Hrólfs saga kraka, already mentions the issue. So I'll merge the relevant content to Hrólf_Kraki#Beowulf, with some trims along the way--because let's face it, it's not the best bit of content we have. Drmies (talk) 17:51, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Beowulf. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070826234854/http://www.raa.se:80/cms/extern/en/places_to_visit/our_historical_sites/ottar_s_mound.html to http://www.raa.se/cms/extern/en/places_to_visit/our_historical_sites/ottar_s_mound.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:12, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Siegfried

No mention of the obvious parallels with the Siegfried Saga? 2601:806:4301:C100:10FE:DE89:FD3E:C131 (talk) 18:25, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

It's covered at The Dragon (Beowulf)#Background. Largoplazo (talk) 18:49, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

In which case it should be summarized here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:12, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Good article nomination

I should be grateful for comments from interested editors on my question at the GAN page. 07:39, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Beowulf/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 07:36, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

At first glance this article looks to be of high quality, but before I start a close reading, may I first make sure that any points raised will be dealt with? The GAN instructions state:

Anyone may nominate an article to be reviewed for GA, although it is preferable that nominators have contributed significantly to the article and are familiar with its subject and its cited sources. Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article on the article talk page prior to a nomination. The reviewer will be making suggestions to improve the article to GA quality during the review process; therefore, the review will require your involvement as nominator. Before nominating an article, ensure that you will be able to respond to these comments in a timely manner.

I can see no evidence that the nominator is a significant contributor to, or has consulted regular editors of, the article. Tim riley talk 07:36, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry; I didn't. Fail the article if you'd like. - MagicatthemovieS

@Tim riley and MagicatthemovieS: although preferred, this is not a requirement. Anyone can nominate an article for GA: WP:GAI. It certainly isn't grounds for failing the nomination. Neither is consulting regular editors required, unlike it is for FA.

That aside, the following short footnotes are boken: Aaij 2013, Tolkien 1958, Tolkien 2006. Additionally, the references – both broken and working – to Beowulf: The Monsters and the Critics could be harmonized using a single edition. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:23, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Quite so, but I don't especially want to go through the article in the usual GAN detail unless I have a sporting chance of getting some answers to my queries. Happy to go ahead with the review if the two editors above (and any others) will be available to deal with my comments. Tim riley talk 23:42, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I won't undertake that. I suggest you fail the nomination at the first genuine concern (if applicable), or if withdrawn by the nominator. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:33, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Initial comments

• We need to be clear which language the article is written in. At present it is a mixture of English and American spellings: I spotted metre, armour, Christianisation, fibre, hypothesise, criticised, and emphasise on the one hand, and on the other honor, defenseless, favor, analyze and fulfill. Please go through the text carefully to standardise (or standardize) spellings. Strictly, you should find the first version of the article in which it is possible to see an English or an American spelling, and whichever it is should be the precedent for all later versions. There is room for common sense, though, and a quick note on the talk page is probably all that is needed when proposing to adopt one or the other.
• I have amended one obvious typo, but am unsure about "otherall", a pleasingly Joycean word which may or may not be meant to be "overall".
• Are they the Geats or the Geates? I noticed both forms in the text.

Please consider the above and we can progress matters. Tim riley talk 16:15, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Not correct, Tim. Here there is a "strong national tie" (the policy wording) to BE, so it needs to use that. See WP:ENGVAR. Johnbod (talk) 02:03, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

• The 2nd or so line included the very contentious claim that the poem probably originated in Northumbria, which I have removed, as Mercia for one has just as many supporters. There is quite a bit on the date, but very little on the location of the composition. This chapter in the Handbook gives great detail on both matters. Generally, many of the references here are older than I am, which is saying a lot. Johnbod (talk) 02:03, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
  • How very pleasing to bump into you here, Johnbod! Point taken about Engvar, and I could easily amend the Americanisms myself, but more generally, unless you are prepared to ride to the rescue, I think I shall have to fail the article this time round, given a drive-by nomination and no-one out there to answer my queries when (or rather if) I start a proper close reading. What think you? Tim riley talk 13:16, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
    • Likewise! I wasn't planning to take it on, I'm afraid, so you'd better fail it. Johnbod (talk) 14:33, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Failing GA

This time round I fear the nomination must fail. Editors more expert on the topic than I have identified inadequacies in the references, and the prose won't do as it stands. With nobody out there to deal with these points the nomination has to fail. I shall take it upon myself to tidy up the spelling, but other editors will need to bring expertise to bear if the article is to be renominated. Tim riley talk 17:11, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Bibliography removed

I removed what is essentially a bibliography of the poem, not the reference bibliography of the article. Some of this may be returned to the article, but it needs cleanup as well. Drmies (talk) 01:24, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Dictionaries

• Cameron, Angus, et al. Dictionary of Old English (Microfiche). Toronto: Published for the Dictionary of Old English Project Centre for Medieval Studies University of Toronto by the Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies, 1986/1994.

Text

Hypertext editions

• 18th century autotypes of the cotton MS Vitellius A XV (facsimile), 1882
• Klaeber, Frederick, ed. Beowulf and the Fight at Finnsburg. Third ed. Boston: Heath, 1950.
• McMaster University. Beowulf in hypertext.

Modern English translations

• Alexander, Michael. Beowulf : A Verse Translation. Penguin Classics; Rev. ed. London: New York, 2003.
• Anderson, Sarah M., Alan Sullivan, and Timothy Murphy. Beowulf. A Longman Cultural Edition; New York: Pearson/Longman, 2004.
• Crossley-Holland, Kevin; Mitchell, Bruce. Beowulf: A New Translation. London: Macmillan, 1968
• Donaldson, E. Talbot, and Nicholas Howe. Beowulf: A Prose Translation: Backgrounds and Contexts, Criticism. A Norton Critical Edition. 2nd ed. New York: Norton, 2002.
• Garmonsway, George Norman, et al. Beowulf and Its Analogues. Revised ed. London: Dent, 1980.
• Gordon, R.K.. The Song of Beowulf:Translation into English prose. New York, 1922. ISBN 978-0-486-27264-1
• Gummere, Francis Barton (1855–1919). 'Beowulf'. St Petersburg, Florida: Red & Black, 2007. ISBN 978-0-9791813-1-3. Translation originally published in 1909.
• Heaney, Seamus (2001), Beowulf: A New Verse Translation, New York: WW Norton, ISBN 0-393-32097-9.
• Hudson, Marc. Beowulf. Introduction and notes by Martin Garrett. Ware: Wordsworth Classics, 2007.
• Lehmann, Ruth. Beowulf: An Imitative Translation. 1st ed. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1988.
• Liuzza, R. M. Beowulf: A New Verse Translation. Orchard Park, NY: Broadview Press, 2000.
• Osborn, Marijane. Annotated List of Beowulf Translations.
• Ringler, Dick. Beowulf: A New Translation For Oral Delivery. Hackett Publishing Company, 2007. ISBN 978-0-87220-893-3.
• Raffel, Burton. Beowulf: A New Translation with an Introduction by Burton Raffel, afterword by Robert P. Creed New York: Mentor/New American Library, 1963.
• Rebsamen, Frederick R. Beowulf : A Verse Translation. 1st ed. New York, NY: Icon Editions, 1991.
• Swanton, Michael (ed.). Beowulf (Manchester Medieval Studies). Manchester: University, 1997.
• Szobody, Michelle L. & Justin Gerard (Illustrator) Beowulf, Book I: Grendel the Ghastly. Greenville, SC: Portland Studios, 2007. ISBN 978-0-9797183-0-4
• Wright, David. Beowulf. Panther Books, 1970. ISBN 0-586-03279-7

Old English and modern English

• Chickering, I; Howell, D (2006) [1977], Beowulf: a dual-language edition, New York: Anchor, ISBN 0-385-06213-3.
• Fulk, RD (2010), The Beowulf Manuscript: Complete Texts and The Fight at Finnsburgh, Dumbarton Oaks Medieval Library, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, ISBN 978-0-674-05295-6.

Old English with glossaries

• Alexander, Michael (2005) [2000], Beowulf: A Glossed Text (2 ed.), London: Penguin.
• Jack, George (1997), Beowulf: A Student Edition, New York: Oxford University Press.
• Klaeber, Frederick, ed. Beowulf and the Fight at Finnsburg. Third ed. Boston: Heath, 1950.
• Mitchell, Bruce; Robinson, Fred C (1998), Beowulf: an edition with relevant shorter texts, Oxford, UK: Malden, MA: Blackwell.
• Porter, John. Beowulf: text and translation. Anglo-Saxon Books, 1991.
• Wrenn, C.L., ed. Beowulf with the Finnesburg Fragment. 3rd ed. London: Harrap, 1973.

Audio

• Ringler, Dick & Norman Gilliland. Beowulf: The Complete Story—A Drama. Madison, WI: NEMO Productions, 2006. ISBN ISBN 0-9715093-2-8
• Baker, P. Readings from Beowulf. In Old English.
• Bagby, Benjamin. Beowulf: the epic in performance

Well, we need some kind of list of editions & translations of the poem as part of this article. The problem is that such a list would need to be selective: I know of 24 scholarly editions of Beowulf published before 1954, & there are at least 66 translations of the poem into Latin & other modern languages. (Osborn's "Annotated List of Beowulf Translations" listed above & in the article itself, while very extensive, also includes a number of adaptations that can't be considered translations.) I doubt a list of almost 100 titles would be useful to any Wikipedia reader, but one needs to be written if this article is to pas GA or FA. -- llywrch (talk) 00:15, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

I wonder whether selections from the list above might belong in the List_of_artistic_depictions_of_Beowulf article - as I am also currently proposing that this article be remained 'translations and artistic depictions', seeing as it can be difficult to draw the line between the two? Medievalfran (talk) 23:15, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Good article

This article is very good, but I see from the above review it needs more references and improvements for prose and adjusted for British spellings. Then can it be nominated for another review? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dilbilir (talk • contribs) 02:37, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

"Many suggest that Beowulf was first composed "

Many? 'Many' whom? Scholars and acknowledged experts (besides Prof.Newton) or 'Sutton Hoo Fan Boys'? 146.200.143.33 (talk) 17:03, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Assessment by Borges

Jorge Luis Borges: "The idea of the hero who kills an ogre, that ogre’s mother, and then a dragon, belongs to a children’s tale. But these monsters were symbols of the powers of evil; they were taken very seriously by that audience. Beowulf has the solid atmosphere of a realist novel. The events are fantastical, but we feel the characters as real, as garrulous as if they were right there, and given to oratory; they are characters who like good manners, conviviality, ceremony." Ghirla^-трёп- 11:16, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

@Ghirlandajo: I have removed the Borges quote you added as it is not relevant to the historical background section which is about historical evidence for the characters in the poem.

In Beowulf, we sense nature as something fearsome, something that is hostile to man; the sense of night and darkness as fearsome, as it surely was for the Saxons, who had settled in an unknown country whose geography they discovered only as they were conquering it.

— Jorge Luis Borges

I also find the explanation of "the sense of night and darkness as fearsome" dubious if Beowulf was written after the Christianisation of Anglo-Saxon England and thus hundreds of years after the Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain. TSventon (talk) 13:00, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Of course you know better than Borges. I wish I had your self-confidence. Ghirla^-трёп- 16:54, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

@Ghirlandajo: I am sceptical about any theory about the writing of Beowulf or the Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain due to the lack of available evidence. Professor Borges: A Course on English Literature is based on transcriptions of lectures given in 1966, so parts of it will inevitably be out of date. TSventon (talk) 15:41, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

References

Date of manuscript

@Nenniu: According to the lead the manuscript was produced between 975 and 1025. Chase argues that within the 975 to 1025 range, the reign of Knut from 1016 is a more likely context for copying the poem. The British Library website (https://www.bl.uk/collection-items/beowulf) also gives the reign of Cnut as a possibility. I have therefore removed "It is thus contemporary with the Anglo-Danish strife between Æthelred the Unready and Sweyn Forkbeard and broadly contemporary with the events surrounding the St Brice's Day Massacre of Danes by the English." from the manuscript section. TSventon (talk) 12:23, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

I dont think removing the whole statement is helpful as it gives some context presently lacking but happy for you to modify to suit your sources Truth regards not who is the speaker, nor in what manner it is spoken, but that the thing be true; and she does not despise the jewel which she has rescued from the mud, but adds it to her former treasures — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nenniu (talk • contribs) 21:35, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

@Nenniu: You have highlighted a problem with the article: there are three different estimates for the date of the manuscript and the references are in the lead and infobox rather than the body of the article where they should be.

• lead: 975–1025 (reference Chase 1997)
• infobox: c. 975–1010 (reference Hanna 2013)
• body: c. 1000 (unreferenced)

I will try to tidy this up but didn't want to start until I knew if you had any information that I don't. Chase is available via Google Books, but Hanna isn't. However I have found a 2016 paper by Neidorf which discusses the evidence for dating the manuscript in the context of a book review (see pages 98–99). TSventon (talk) 11:15, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

@Drmies: I am inclined to delete the reference to Ralph Hanna's book to avoid excessive detailed discussion of what Neil Ker meant by “s. x/xi” in 1957. Do you know any editors who are interested in this kind of thing, or might have access to Ralph Hanna's book? TSventon (talk) 12:06, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

• TSventon, thanks for the ping. Interesting. "c. 1000" in the text is accurate--in a way, but it's really unclear of course in what the range of "c." is. I am not familiar with Hanna's work, but I will have a look. That infobox is a bit problematic--the ranges should match the text, of course, and I don't quite get the rather arbitrary "date of story" thing: that's a thing too complicated for an infobox, and it suggests that "story" is some simple originary thing. I'll follow your links, after class--thanks. Drmies (talk) 15:20, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Drmies. If you are familiar with 1066 and All That, I can recommend the interpolated palimpsest and the missing fitt in Chase from p12 (via Google books). TSventon (talk) 16:32, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

No I dont have any more info and dont want to be accused of "original research either" - I was trying to understand the cultural context of the manuscript- why it might have been compiled and it seems relevant that this was under in the era of Cnut a Danish King of England- there was no real cultural context given in the article as it stood. It is otherwise a complete mystery why a Scandinavian story has been preserved in English translation. Truth regards not who is the speaker, nor in what manner it is spoken, but that the thing be true; and she does not despise the jewel which she has rescued from the mud, but adds it to her former treasures — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nenniu (talk • contribs) 18:17, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

@Nenniu: I think the cultural context of the composition of the poem is more interesting, but difficult to cover briefly as it could have been any period from about 700 to 1000. The (early) English took their name from the Angles of Schleswig-Holstein, so it is not surprising that they took an interest in German and Scandinavian heroes. (Sadly the idea that the author actually attended Beowulf's funeral has fallen out of fashion.) TSventon (talk) 11:25, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

References

Mark Scowcroft

Chiswick Chap thank you for all the work you are doing on the article. Would it be possible to add a sentence about Scowcroft's work in the Beowulf#Hand and Child tale section, to introduce the table of his Hand and Child parallels? I think that would help readers, like myself, who are not familiar with his work. TSventon (talk) 10:34, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. I've added a brief mention from his biography, and extended the sentence to lead in to the table a little more gracefully. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:44, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Scandinavian parallels (POV section)

The idea that there was a Scandinavian original tradition, I have seen in several sources such as in Gamla Uppsala: människor och makter i högarnas skugga from 2018, where it is mentioned and reported as current, but in this article it was proposed in the 19th c. and quickly abandoned and "debunked". Also calling Hrolf Kraki's saga "another candidate for an analogue", truly does not come near the standard view that I have encountered.--Berig (talk) 07:47, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

The main source for this section is Anderson (1998) who claims that Book of Genesis is the strongest candidate! This looks very much like Christian fundamentalism and is it really, seriously, in accordance with due weight? --Berig (talk) 10:13, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

PS, another interesting thing is that the mainstream Beowulf scholar Tom Shippey is published in the same book as Anderson, but no interest has been paid in this section to where he stands on the matter (hint: he would disagree).--Berig (talk) 10:35, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

There is no reason to emphasise Andersson, so I've cut him right down; all the (brief) section now says is that people have proposed possible parallels, mainly rejected by other scholars, while there is some kind of parallel between the "bear-men" Bodvar Bjarki and Beowulf (as Shippey indeed says while discussing Tolkien's bear-man Beorn) so we don't need the tag. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:28, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I think there is a lot of confusion of apples and oranges here. The main focus is on the story of killing Grendel and its analogies. However, the poem is so much bigger, and it is hardly controversial that it shares at least eight characters with Scandinavian sources. These agreements are discussed in the first section. --Berig (talk) 12:41, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

No, there's certainly a connection. By the way, the Genesis connection is mandated by the Beowulf text, which mentions Cain directly. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:52, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but it was transmitted for a long time in Christian society. Naturally, pagan traits must have been replaced with Christian ones.--Berig (talk) 13:55, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Not sure what "pagan traits" would mean; the Beowulf poet was Christian and was recalling the pagan tale of Beowulf and even older myths and legends for his Christian audience. But this is far off-topic for this thread; the article already covers that. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:00, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

It was certainly written down by a Christian. I am referring to the older myths and legends that were certainly pagan, at least originally, but as you say it is covered.--Berig (talk) 14:03, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Mostly, though the story of Cain was one of the inclusions. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:06, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it is a fascinating composition.--Berig (talk) 14:10, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Dialect section copyvio

User:Ehrenkater, thank you for querying the wording of the section. Unfortunately I have checked Google books and the description of Beowulf's vocabulary seems to have been copied directly from pages 1 to 3 of the quoted source (Ritchie Girvan. Beowulf and the Seventh Century Language and Content. Methuen & Company Ltd. London. 1971), so I have removed it. The paragraph was added on 18:11, 4 October 2010 by an editor who is no longer active and source added 15:44, 6 October 2010. The information could be summarised and added back. Also pinging User:Chiswick Chap. TSventon (talk) 23:07, 4 March 2021 (UTC).

According to Talk:Beowulf/Archive 3#UP COMING REVISIONS, the editor was a student account used for a project in 2010, so their other edits may also be problematic, if not previously reversed. TSventon (talk) 00:24, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

• Mulreadytoread (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Thanks guys. I don't see any need to restore a paraphrase of that material, as it was peripheral to the section (let alone to the article). Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:10, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Cambridge Companion to Beowulf?

Several claims in the article are cited to Robinson 2001 (with page numbers including 143 and 181), which the bibliography expands to Robinson, Fred C. (2001). The Cambridge Companion to Beowulf. Cambridge University Press. However, there ain't no such animal – not on Library Hub Discover, or on WorldCat, nor on CUP's own website. Robinson was indeed a distinguished scholar of Beowulf, and I wondered whether this might be an erroneous reference to his essay on the poem in The Cambridge Companion to Old English Literature, ed. Godden and Lapidge (2012) – but in that case there would be a number of errors. Can anyone work out what's gone wrong? GrindtXX (talk) 20:30, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

I think @Chiswick Chap: must know. He added references to the work.--Berig (talk) 21:08, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

A multi-editor garble over a long period, I'm afraid, the citation and page numbers were already present. Chiswick Chap (talk) 01:09, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Haven't looked, since I still use Klaeber, but I suspect it's Bruce Mitchell and Fred Robinson's edition, Blackwell, 2001, ISBN 0-63-117225-4. Lemme hunt in the history, it's always possible a citation got mangled in a switch to Harvard or sfn. Yngvadottir (talk) 06:29, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

If you haven't already got it, I recommend the updated 4th edition of Klaeber's book from 2008. It has probably extended the relevance of the book for a few decades more.--Berig (talk) 19:12, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Found it; there was originally a quotation about the poet's name not being known, which was restored by ClueBot in January 2014 (IIRC) after a blanking edit. Robinson wrote the Beowulf essay in The Cambridge Companion to Old English Literature, and that's what we've actually been citing. I will attempt to fit it in; give me a bit of time, I suck at these complicated reference systems and will have to look up the edition number and ISBN. Yngvadottir (talk) 06:46, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Yngvadottir and Chiswick Chap for your edits in response to my query, which have certainly improved matters – but I'm afraid we're not quite there yet. As the version of the Cambridge Companion to OE Literature available on Google Books is incomplete, I have got hold of a library copy of the 1991 edition. (Just to be clear: the book was first published in 1991; and was reprinted several times subsequently, including the 2002 edition on Google Books (though for some bizarre reason beyond my comprehension that has a 1986 copyright date). There was then a second edition published in 2013, which I haven't seen, but which I'm assuming wasn't wildly different. There's also an e-book of the 1991 edition available on ProQuest that some of you may have institutional access to, but that lacks page numbers.)

Right. We currently cite this source 4 times, referring to 2 different pages (pp. 143 and 181). The claim that the poem has no title in the original manuscript, but has become known by the name of the protagonist (n.3 / Robinson p. 143) is fine. The claim that scholars call the anonymous author the "Beowulf poet" (n.3 / Robinson p. 143) is slightly more problematic: Robinson does emphasise that the poet is anonymous, but doesn't say anything explicitly about the "Beowulf poet". I'm not going to kick up a fuss about this, but if anyone has an alternative source that makes that specific point, it would be good.

Considerably more problematic are the two references concerning religious perspectives, citing, at n. 153, Robinson p. 181. Robinson's essay only spans pp. 142–159: p. 181 comes in the middle of an essay by Christine Fell on transience, and is completely irrelevant here. Robinson does discuss religious matters, and the fact that the poem contains an uneasy amalgam of Christian and heathen perspectives, at pp. 150–152. It's therefore conceivable that p. 181 is a typo for p. 151. However, I don't think so: Robinson doesn't make quite the points that we attribute to him here, and he doesn't use the specific phrases that we have in quotation marks ("Anglo-Saxon Heathenism", "impressed" and "Christian truth"). I therefore suspect that what's being cited is some quite different work by Robinson that does include a p. 181.

What I'm going to do now as a stopgap measure is to change the references in n. 153 from Robinson 2002 p. 181 to pp. 150–152. However, if anyone can come up with the alternative Robinson source, that would be a lot better. GrindtXX (talk) 20:58, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

@GrindtXX: Ah, thank you, now I have a better idea of the dimensions of the problem. The religious section is indeed problematic. I see that the passage in that section relying on Robinson "p. 181" was introduced by Kdstall in 2017 here. That editor appears to have arrived and left that year. Robinson wrote a number of things on Beowulf, and I'm limited to Google Books; the content seems to me to be most likely derived from Beowulf and the Appositive Style, but that was based on a lecture and does not have 181 pages. I'm also not seeing hits on the exact words in quotes, but if I could, I would look at the later edition of E. Talbot Donaldson and Nicholas Howe, Beowulf: A Prose Translation, which has in its apparatus an article by Robinson titled "Appositive style and the theme of Beowulf", which corresponds to the title of the first chapter of the Appositive Style book. However, beyond that, our article doesn't seem to refer to the fact there is a pitying report of a heathen/pagan sacrifice in the poem; if I didn't miss it, that's a startling omission, even in the context of the old theory (which I very much doubt is anything but fringe in modern academia) that the overtly Christian elements in the poem are bolted on, in effect interpolations. There is an essay on "Pagan Survivals and Popular Belief" by John D. Niles in the original version of The Cambridge Companion, which may well contain material we could use in that section; I see that the second edition (here at Academia.edu) retains that but has replaced Robinson on Beowulf with Andy Orchard, but I'll leave it to editors more up on the scholarship than I am to decide whether we need that point or whether to just use other things we are citing to make one or more points about the poet's attitude toward paganism/heathenry and whether the poem can be said to impute any degree of heathenism to its audience. Yngvadottir (talk) 23:07, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, on your last sentence/sentiment, we can for example use Liuzza's (already cited) comments on religion. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:07, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Wynn

Should the Old English version of Beowulf be Bēowulf (with a w) or Bēoƿulf (with a wynn)?

I am taking this to talk as @Egon20: changed the lead to use wynn, I reverted based on Talk:Beowulf/Archive 1#Translation and they have reverted again, saying "It is not our fault if wynn is similar to a p. Let the name be original instead of editing the text, any knowledgable person would notice this mistake". TSventon (talk) 08:24, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

It is a mistake to use a letter that is not originally old english. I don't see why there is a need to talk about this. Egon20 (talk) 08:34, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

It is not a mistake, it is a decision. Wikipedia normally follows modern sources, and I understand that modern editions of the original text use w rather than wynn. TSventon (talk) 09:06, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Shouldn't an adaptation section be included here?

Instead of merely a disambiguation page (which usually parses similar spellings or common reuses of a name but for a different person, etc), shouldn't references to Beowulf in other media be included directly in this article, including links to the various movie versions of the legend? Also links to the various translations could be included at the top of this section for easy linking (Tolkien's has its own page, for example). Deliusfan (talk) 14:40, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Deliusfan, List of translations of Beowulf and List of adaptations of Beowulf are currently linked through Template:Beowulf at the foot of the page, which is probably acceptable as the article was recently rated as a good article. On the other hand Iliad has sections on "Influence on arts and pop culture" and "English translations", so adding new sections would also work. Chiswick Chap, what do you think? TSventon (talk) 13:37, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I just found what you mentioned, but it's buried in the editions section which I never saw, hence why I made the suggestion. What if just that little note were broken out into a section, or if "adaptations" was added to the title for editions, etc? My biggest concern is ease of finding the information. Deliusfan (talk) 15:53, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Deliusfan, if you want to add a section or sections summarising the lists of translations and adaptations, go ahead, bearing in mind the criteria for Wikipedia:Good articles. If you want somebody else to do so, you can wait to see if somebody takes up your suggestion. TSventon (talk) 16:14, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

I did a minor edit, just adding adaptations to one of the section headings as well as its requisite subheading. I think this solves the visibility issue as it now is found immediately before the box leading to the other main articles on translations and list of adaptations. Deliusfan (talk) 01:49, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Deliusfan, that looks good to me. TSventon (talk) 08:10, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. Deliusfan (talk) 22:01, 26 March 2022 (UTC)