Abstract
Translation
Recordings
Picking at the Messenger's Words
Biblical Arrogance
Closing
Back To Top
Abstract
The messenger goes on to recount why the Swedes will also turn against the Geats once word of Beowulf's death reaches them.
Back To Top
Translation
Nor do I expect the Swedes to hold us as kin
or remain peaceful; for it was widely known
that Ongeontheow slew Haethcyn,
son of Hrethel, in the strife at Ravenswood,
when for arrogance the Geats first
sought to strike the Scylfings.
Old and terrible, Ohthere's wise father
gave the return assault,
destroyed the sea king, kept his bride,
deprived his aged wife of gold,
the mother of Onela and Ohthere;
then he followed the mortal foe,
until they showed themselves
in great leaderless hardship in the Ravenswood.
(Beowulf ll.2922-2935)
Back To Top
Recordings
Old English:
Modern English:
Back To Top
Picking at the Messenger's Words
This passage is as complex as any path through a place called the Ravenswood might be. The Anglo-Saxon basics are here (a feud, raiding for treasure's sake, protecting peace weavers), but the way that they're delivered likely leaves something to be desired for most modern readers.
Particularly, the jump from the statement that the Swedes will not be the Geats' greatest allies to the retelling of the Geats arrogantly raiding Swedish lands is not entirely clear.
There is a connection between the two, sure, but it definitely casts the Swedes in a much more negative light than the Geats. I mean, obviously any such unprovoked attack is likely to start some bitter feelings, but just as much as the Swedes hate the Geats for it, the Geats should hate the Swedes - their king was lost there, after all.
However, maybe the way that the messenger tells the story, calling the Geats arrogant and putting the Swedes in the place of the villains, is a call back to the story of Haethcyn and Herebeald. The story of fratricide leading to Haethcyn's becoming king upon Hrethel's death, itself brought on by Herebeald's death.
Back To Top
Biblical Arrogance
If we follow this string a little further, we can speculate that the Geats' arrogance wasn't to be found in fighting a greater force than themselves - but rather that the Geats were arrogant in trying to force judgment on Haethcyn (a man that none could judge nor feud with because of the nature of fratricide).
For if the Swedes were a greater force than what the Geats could muster, and though it sounds like it must have been a harsh fate for those Ongeontheow met in the Ravenswood, it's possible that they raided Swedish lands simply to get Haethcyn, the one guilty of fratricide, killed.
If such is the case, then maybe this act itself is also a reference to the story of king David and Bathsheba, in which he sends her husband, Uriah, to the front line so that she becomes a widow and therefore available. This biblical story is definitely one of arrogance, yet, Christ is considered to be of David's lineage, and so relating a doomed race to such a story suggests that there is hope yet for the Geats, in some small and distant way.
Following this line of thinking, and working with the hypothesis that Beowulf was written down in the 10th/11th centuries, then maybe it was popular enough to write down around this time because it reflected a large group of Anglo-Saxon society's hopefulness in the face of great odds.
Back To Top
Closing
That's it for Tongues in Jars until the New Year. Watch for the next Beowulf entry on January 3!
Back To Top
Showing posts with label king. Show all posts
Showing posts with label king. Show all posts
Thursday, December 20, 2012
Thursday, December 6, 2012
Appraising a Dagger via a Sword
Abstract
Translation
Recordings
Reading Steel
Ouroboros Slinks in
Closing
Back To Top
Abstract
The messenger sent by Wiglaf tells the waiting people of Beowulf's fate, and Wiglaf's steadfastness.
Back To Top
Translation
"'Now is the Weder's gracious giver,
the lord of the Geats, fast in his deathbed,
gone to the grave by the dragon's deed:
Beside him, in like state, lay the
mortal enemy, dead from dagger wounds; for that sword
could not work any wound whatever on
that fierce foe. Wiglaf sits
by Beowulf's side, the son of Weohstan,
a warrior watching over the unliving other,
holding vigil over the Geats' chief,
he sits by the beloved and the reviled.'"
(Beowulf ll.2900-2910a)
Back To Top
Recordings
Old English:
Modern English:
Back To Top
Reading Steel
The emphasis that the messenger puts on the dagger is strange. It's not that he goes out of his way to praise it, but the fact that he makes it clear that the sword was useless. This extra detail suggests that the sword was indeed considered the proper, noble weapon, while the dagger held a lower position on the symbolic/social scale of weapons. Nonetheless, the connotation of Beowulf's dagger use underlines just what the Geats lose when they lose Beowulf.
It was likely standard among Anglo-Saxons to carry a dagger of some kind with them, along with their swordbelt. However, even in the heat of the moment, the poet peels things back and tells us that Beowulf wore his dagger on his hip/byrnie.
So was the wearing of a smaller blade a new thing with Beowulf's generation? Was it simply the garb of a proper warrior? Why does the poet specify where Beowulf wore his dagger?
Such a small detail, though potentially of some historical or cultural significance, is more likely than not just an example of the poet filling out his poetic meter. The mention of the sword's failure, as an explanation for the use of the dagger definitely shows that the messenger is true to his word - he leaves out no detail.
And that honesty opens up the other side of the issue, it seems very likely that the sword is only mentioned to excuse the dagger. In fact, if you've read Beowulf enough times, you can almost see the crowd rolling their eyes and thinking that Beowulf's just being Beowulf, being too strong for any sword and whatnot.
Back To Top
Ouroboros Slinks in
Yet, if we turn the mention of the dagger again, then there's the matter of the dragon's existence in the story being cyclical. The dragon appears because a thief steals from its hoard.
A dagger is weapon of favour among those who prize stealth (like thieves) - hence the modern genre tag "cloak and dagger" - and so is likely to be a thief's weapon. The dragon is killed with a dagger, and so the dragon's existence in the story is something of a closed system. A noble sword is wielded, but in the end what woke the dragon must put it back to its rest.
Back To Top
Closing
Next week, watch for the prognostications of the messenger on Thursday! I'll also be uploading links to any British/Medieval archaelogical news that I come across.
Back To Top
Translation
Recordings
Reading Steel
Ouroboros Slinks in
Closing
 |
Back To Top
Abstract
The messenger sent by Wiglaf tells the waiting people of Beowulf's fate, and Wiglaf's steadfastness.
Back To Top
Translation
"'Now is the Weder's gracious giver,
the lord of the Geats, fast in his deathbed,
gone to the grave by the dragon's deed:
Beside him, in like state, lay the
mortal enemy, dead from dagger wounds; for that sword
could not work any wound whatever on
that fierce foe. Wiglaf sits
by Beowulf's side, the son of Weohstan,
a warrior watching over the unliving other,
holding vigil over the Geats' chief,
he sits by the beloved and the reviled.'"
(Beowulf ll.2900-2910a)
Back To Top
Recordings
Old English:
Modern English:
Back To Top
Reading Steel
The emphasis that the messenger puts on the dagger is strange. It's not that he goes out of his way to praise it, but the fact that he makes it clear that the sword was useless. This extra detail suggests that the sword was indeed considered the proper, noble weapon, while the dagger held a lower position on the symbolic/social scale of weapons. Nonetheless, the connotation of Beowulf's dagger use underlines just what the Geats lose when they lose Beowulf.
It was likely standard among Anglo-Saxons to carry a dagger of some kind with them, along with their swordbelt. However, even in the heat of the moment, the poet peels things back and tells us that Beowulf wore his dagger on his hip/byrnie.
So was the wearing of a smaller blade a new thing with Beowulf's generation? Was it simply the garb of a proper warrior? Why does the poet specify where Beowulf wore his dagger?
Such a small detail, though potentially of some historical or cultural significance, is more likely than not just an example of the poet filling out his poetic meter. The mention of the sword's failure, as an explanation for the use of the dagger definitely shows that the messenger is true to his word - he leaves out no detail.
And that honesty opens up the other side of the issue, it seems very likely that the sword is only mentioned to excuse the dagger. In fact, if you've read Beowulf enough times, you can almost see the crowd rolling their eyes and thinking that Beowulf's just being Beowulf, being too strong for any sword and whatnot.
Back To Top
Ouroboros Slinks in
Yet, if we turn the mention of the dagger again, then there's the matter of the dragon's existence in the story being cyclical. The dragon appears because a thief steals from its hoard.
A dagger is weapon of favour among those who prize stealth (like thieves) - hence the modern genre tag "cloak and dagger" - and so is likely to be a thief's weapon. The dragon is killed with a dagger, and so the dragon's existence in the story is something of a closed system. A noble sword is wielded, but in the end what woke the dragon must put it back to its rest.
Back To Top
Closing
Next week, watch for the prognostications of the messenger on Thursday! I'll also be uploading links to any British/Medieval archaelogical news that I come across.
Back To Top
Thursday, July 26, 2012
Beowulf: Mighty in Arms, Loose in Words? [ll.2732b-2743b] (Old English)
Abstract
Translation
Recordings
Peering in, But Just Dipping Toes
Not Many Oaths Sworn "in Unrighteousness"
Kinds of Kin-Slaying
Closing
Back To Top
Abstract
Beowulf says that he's come to terms with his death because he was a good king and can stand blameless before the final judgment.
Back To Top
Translation
"'I this people have ruled
for fifty winters; never was there a king of the people,
any of the neighbouring folks
would dare attack with war-friends,
threaten terror. I in my homeland awaited
destiny, it guarded me well,
I did not seek contrived hostility, nor swore I many
oaths in unrighteousness. In all of this
infirmity of a mortal wound I have joy;
because the Lord of men has no cause to accuse me
of murderous killing of kinsmen, when my
life passes from my body.'"
(Beowulf ll.2732b-2743a)
Back To Top
Recordings
Old English:
{Forthcoming}
Modern English:
{Forthcoming}
Back To Top
Peering in, But Just Dipping Toes
For such a short passage, there's a fair bit going on here.
It's revealed that Beowulf has ruled as long as Hrothgar and Grendel's Mother did; that Beowulf was the sort of king that defended his lands on reputation or by some other passive means; that he had a fairly Taoist, go-with-the-flow life philosophy that kept him out of trouble; that he has been mostly true to his word; and that he is guiltless when it comes to murdering kinsmen.
Though there's quite a bit of depth here, this entry is just going to focus on the last two in that list.
Back To Top
Not Many Oaths Sworn "in Unrighteousness"
What does Beowulf mean when he says "nor swore I many/oaths in unrighteousness" ("ne me swor fela/aða on unriht." (ll.2738-2739), emphasis my own)? Is it an accepted part of Anglo-Saxon life (perhaps especially or only in positions of power) that some oaths are not sworn in the best of circumstances?
What exactly does it mean to swear an oath in "unrighteousness"?
Did Beowulf swear some oaths to do some unsavory things? Did he swear some oaths to escape others? Did he make pacts with spirits?
The wording itself aside, what can be looked at here is the word "fela," which I translated as "many." So there haven't been a lot of oaths sworn poorly. is this just a matter of practice?
Though we don't see Beowulf swearing oaths unrighteously, it is curious that Beowulf plays fast and loose with his retelling of the fights with Grendel and with Grendel's Mother to Hrothgar. Specifically, Beowulf adds Grendel's terrible glove to his story (ll.2085-2088), and greatly shortens his encounter with Grendel's mother (ll.2135-2141).
Words were considered incredibly important to Anglo-Saxons, especially when it came to the valuation of people. So, could this alteration of words mean that Beowulf didn't always take words so seriously?
Perhaps the answer can be found in the next part.
Back To Top
Kinds of Kin-Slaying
Within the poem itself, there have been several instances of kin-slaying.
Most recently is Beowulf's story of Hæðcyn killing Herebeald, but there is also the story of the Battle of Finnburgh, and, of course, Beowulf's implication that Unferth killed his brother. Though it's the most distant to this point in the poem, the Unferth instance might actually be the most relevant here.
According to some, the first half of Beowulf represents Beowulf's destroying his shadow self, in so far as Grendel and Grendel's Mother are embodiments of Beowulf's animalistic nature.
In fact, others also suggest that Beowulf and Grendel are somehow related, making Beowulf a kin-killer.
On one hand this seems like an unstable interpretation, but, on the other, every statement in the section of Beowulf's speech translated for this entry gives further information about his life through implication. Thus, either Beowulf is suggesting that accusations of kin-killing have been made against him, or that kin-killing is a common crime among kings, but he is innocent of it.
Back To Top
Closing
Next week, as a relief from the animal, the first verse of the thirteenth century Latin poem "O Fortuna" will be translated. Plus, Beowulf makes his penultimate request of Wiglaf, and the plucky young thane goes darting off to fulfill it.
Back To Top
Translation
Recordings
Peering in, But Just Dipping Toes
Not Many Oaths Sworn "in Unrighteousness"
Kinds of Kin-Slaying
Closing
 |
Back To Top
Abstract
Beowulf says that he's come to terms with his death because he was a good king and can stand blameless before the final judgment.
Back To Top
Translation
"'I this people have ruled
for fifty winters; never was there a king of the people,
any of the neighbouring folks
would dare attack with war-friends,
threaten terror. I in my homeland awaited
destiny, it guarded me well,
I did not seek contrived hostility, nor swore I many
oaths in unrighteousness. In all of this
infirmity of a mortal wound I have joy;
because the Lord of men has no cause to accuse me
of murderous killing of kinsmen, when my
life passes from my body.'"
(Beowulf ll.2732b-2743a)
Back To Top
Recordings
Old English:
{Forthcoming}
Modern English:
{Forthcoming}
Back To Top
Peering in, But Just Dipping Toes
For such a short passage, there's a fair bit going on here.
It's revealed that Beowulf has ruled as long as Hrothgar and Grendel's Mother did; that Beowulf was the sort of king that defended his lands on reputation or by some other passive means; that he had a fairly Taoist, go-with-the-flow life philosophy that kept him out of trouble; that he has been mostly true to his word; and that he is guiltless when it comes to murdering kinsmen.
Though there's quite a bit of depth here, this entry is just going to focus on the last two in that list.
Back To Top
Not Many Oaths Sworn "in Unrighteousness"
What does Beowulf mean when he says "nor swore I many/oaths in unrighteousness" ("ne me swor fela/aða on unriht." (ll.2738-2739), emphasis my own)? Is it an accepted part of Anglo-Saxon life (perhaps especially or only in positions of power) that some oaths are not sworn in the best of circumstances?
What exactly does it mean to swear an oath in "unrighteousness"?
Did Beowulf swear some oaths to do some unsavory things? Did he swear some oaths to escape others? Did he make pacts with spirits?
The wording itself aside, what can be looked at here is the word "fela," which I translated as "many." So there haven't been a lot of oaths sworn poorly. is this just a matter of practice?
Though we don't see Beowulf swearing oaths unrighteously, it is curious that Beowulf plays fast and loose with his retelling of the fights with Grendel and with Grendel's Mother to Hrothgar. Specifically, Beowulf adds Grendel's terrible glove to his story (ll.2085-2088), and greatly shortens his encounter with Grendel's mother (ll.2135-2141).
Words were considered incredibly important to Anglo-Saxons, especially when it came to the valuation of people. So, could this alteration of words mean that Beowulf didn't always take words so seriously?
Perhaps the answer can be found in the next part.
Back To Top
Kinds of Kin-Slaying
Within the poem itself, there have been several instances of kin-slaying.
Most recently is Beowulf's story of Hæðcyn killing Herebeald, but there is also the story of the Battle of Finnburgh, and, of course, Beowulf's implication that Unferth killed his brother. Though it's the most distant to this point in the poem, the Unferth instance might actually be the most relevant here.
According to some, the first half of Beowulf represents Beowulf's destroying his shadow self, in so far as Grendel and Grendel's Mother are embodiments of Beowulf's animalistic nature.
In fact, others also suggest that Beowulf and Grendel are somehow related, making Beowulf a kin-killer.
On one hand this seems like an unstable interpretation, but, on the other, every statement in the section of Beowulf's speech translated for this entry gives further information about his life through implication. Thus, either Beowulf is suggesting that accusations of kin-killing have been made against him, or that kin-killing is a common crime among kings, but he is innocent of it.
Back To Top
Closing
Next week, as a relief from the animal, the first verse of the thirteenth century Latin poem "O Fortuna" will be translated. Plus, Beowulf makes his penultimate request of Wiglaf, and the plucky young thane goes darting off to fulfill it.
Back To Top
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)