Thanks, Janice, for a refreshingly intelligent thread. I for one have nothing to add but to assert confidently, without a shred of favoritism via Eratosphere, that Tim's and the late Alan's translation of this excerpt is superior to Heaney's. The latter doesn't have the tightness or control or the readability.

Hear hear, Don. I'very just reread it and it is amazingly crisp and lucid. Janice I don'the think there is any resolution beyond what Peter and Tim and Alan'so footnote have indicated. My dictionary gives blac for black and blac with a long a for pale, bright, shining, wan, etc., the cluster cognate with bleach etc.

Good to know. I've read three translations, and Heaney's is the best of those three...but I have yet to read the Alan and Tim translation. I should get on that.

How wonderful to find some scholarly interest in my question.

I want to make it clear that I am not insinuating that Tim and Alan or Heaney have mistranslated.

My question (or perhaps my suspicious, nagging wondering about how it fits in with facts, or what I think I know) goes beyond that. I was curious about the source word, so thanks, Peter so much for the link to the Nowell Codex.

Here is some further musing. (Just thinking out loud, not pretending to have cracked a Rosetta Stone.)

That there is only one extant copy of Beowulf, and that one is fire damaged, so we cannot ascertain its veracity.

That the whole set up of the poem is oral literature that has been written down (like the Iliad and Odyssey).

That the early church, the one a few centuries old, did its utmost to ruthlessly wipe out all traces of rival pagan beliefs.

That there are countless examples of manuscripts which exist in differing texts (not least the early gospels but also ancient texts in Hebrew).

That England was a bastion of Christianity during the span when the manuscript was made (eighth to eleventh century).

That the pagan Vikings were plundering Christendom until into the eleventh century.

That the Christianizing influences on (geographical) Sweden came from England (where it was established) in the ninth century. Whereas the influences of ditto on Denmark came from Germany and France and were earlier.

That these two religious spheres were in conflict with one another. Because the Christianizing of peoples was political, mandated in Scandinavia by convincing the kings that it was good for his power base and then the king told his people: convert or else. (This is contrary to popular belief which piously relies on the official propaganda.)

I happen to live in "Geat" and our history is very much alive being all around us. We have relics of early Christianity in our backyard, this being a seat of the early power struggles and later establishment. Everyone (well, lots of people anyway) knows the stories. This historical topic has long been an area of my particular, (if mostly amateur but sometime academic) study. So my question does not derive from an idle thought and a quick Google.

That there is hardly a bird that the Church has not added to its repertoire to use as a moral example. The pelicans, the crane, the raven, and many more are found inside churches as sculpture and also in legends--many, if not most, of which were retelling of pagan tales). This incorporation from other religions was a stock-in-trade trick to root out the old religions.

For instance, to veer somewhat, the Greek midsummer festivities (summer solstice) had the killjoy John the Baptist superimposed on them. What could be grimmer than to replace a carnal love feast with a celebration of that old ranter in the wilderness crying repent, repent. The Swedish midwinter Yule became Christmas (and the hog still reigns supreme on the Yule table to the horror of our new Muslim citizens). I could digress here but will control myself.

That copyists do make mistakes, intentionally or inadvertently.

That it makes MUCH MORE SENSE that a blackbird is joyfully singing on the morning of departure for home, than that a raven is joyfully singing.

There seems to be agreement among scholars (as I found out through Ross's post, thank you) that this is a thorny point, that the text there doesn't quite make sense. So the academics are twisting themselves into pretzels trying to find ways to make it fit. (Rather like the old joke among the military: if the map and the terrain do not agree, trust the map).

But thanks lovely Spherians for interest. My question was impulsively asked, knowing that friend Tim was somewhere about and might be able to give me some scoop about why "raven" was his choice. His answer might well be: Because there is scholarly consensus about those source-target words.

My interest was especially piqued because I've just (coincidentally) enjoyed the series on the origins and spread of the English language (long one of my special areas of interest) which I've recommended on another thread yesterday. But here it is again should anyone be interested--8 hours in all. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VsVz5U76kX0

I still think it is wrong--not wrongly translated, but that somewhere down the centuries the joyous song of the night-singing blackbird has been wrongly attributed or translated and become permanent.

But thanks again for all the thoughtful input on this.

I've written the above off thte top of my head before I have my morning coffee so may return (or not).

Now my morning java and continuing my read of this great saga. (FYI the Longman book contains much more than the Murphy-Sullivan translation of Beowulf.)

Just a quick comment. I printed out the text and read it for breakfast and want to say that Peter's argument based on alliteration is very compelling. The next thought that arises is whether "hrefn" might be a generic term for all black birds and (daring conjecture) the differences (say between raven and blackbird--in the modern sense--might then have been distinguished through pronunciation (inflection and stress) and context. English had a fairly limited vocabulary at that time.

I am very intrigued by Michael's reference to Aldhelm's Riddle 43. I am not knowledgeable about the old riddles (one of many knowledge gaps) and can't find a referential text. I agree fully about the blurred lines between the religions. Moreover it is not easy to discern when enthusiasm for the scribe's own faith took the upper hand and a text was embellished. I'll try to see if I can find out more about this.

A most interesting discussion from the depths of the collective Spherian brain. I am grateful for the interest and added knowledge. Thanks.

The poet doesn't call them "sweet-singing ," Janice, but "blithe-hearted." Although it is ominous making them heralds of heaven's joy, there is a basis in their typical behavior, which is social, communicative, playful, bold, inventive. You should read Tolkien's Beowulf and the Critics. Nothing better on the relationship of Christianity and paganism in the poem. Richard North's Origins of Beowulf is a fascinating compendium of source material, including likely tale-telling from Scandinavian sailors and heterodox scriptures.

Thanks so much, Bill. Just ordered "The Monsters and the Critics and Other Essays" and while I had my spending breeches on, I also boughtThe Origins of Beowulf: and the Pre-Viking Kingdom of East Anglia by Sam Newton (and) Kathy Herbert's Looking for the Lost Gods of England.

The Richard North tome will have to wait for another day. But is duly noted. Thank you.

As is your comment on "blithe-hearted". I wouldn't characterize a Corvus as blithe, though others might. "blithe" is a really ancient word, Old Norse that goes back to Old High German roots.

If this source is to be trusted, the nuance is not raven-like.

blithe (adj.) http://www.etymonline.com/graphics/dictionary.gifOld English bliþe "joyous, kind, cheerful, pleasant," from Proto-Germanic *blithiz "gentle, kind" (cognates: Old Saxon bliði "bright, happy," Middle Dutch blide, Dutch blijde, Old Norse bliðr "mild, gentle," Old High German blidi "gay, friendly," Gothic bleiþs "kind, friendly, merciful").
That said, I am enjoying this conversation very much. (And will make a few spelling and grammar corrections in my next which I noticed when I read the printed thread.)

Well, we definitely took hrefn blaec as black raven, not as blackbird. And he does appear many times, usually rending the corpses of the slain.

The Wulf is a monster of a poem, and our version is about 300 lines shorter than the original, simply because our language is so much more economical than Anglo Saxon and we wanted to avoid the padding found in so many translations.

When we finally read Heaney's translation, Alan dubbed it the Heaneywulf, the epic poem of the Celtic people!

Janet, I regard it as 8th C. and written in Scandinavia. It is monotheistic, no Christ, no conception of the trinity, no mention of the Germanic pantheon, only the All-father. So I date the poem by its theology. I believe the poet had some familiarity with the Old Testament, not the New. So it certainly couldn't have been written in England after St. Augustine converted the country.

You clearly both nerds of the first water, and I am in awe of you. This is a delightful thread.

Best,

Ed

Hi Tim. Good to see you and thank you so much for responding.

In the 700s (8th century) the Old Norse gods were still worshiped in Scandinavia.

I mentioned the absence of Christ in Beowulf only to make clear that (to my mind), had this poem been composed during a Christian period, it would have referenced "Vite Krist" (Hvítakristr) White Christ, for this term was intrinsic to the the religious struggle with "Röde Tor", Red Thor, who was a bloody warlike god in contrast to the supposedly peace-loving Christus. (N.B. Pre-Crusade.)

However, all the deity references in Beowulf are (as you said, Tim) to an All-Father figure. Odin was father to Thor and was the most powerful god in Old Norse mythology.

Let me add that I am deriving much pleasure from your and Alan's translation (as well as Mr. Heaney's) and especially your footnotes are enjoyable (something lacking in the Heaney rendition. Esp. I am happy when I find references to items and habits still alive in our contemporary language and culture.

Should your path wend through Scandinavia, I recommend that you (and all and sundry who share our interest) visit the Danish national museum (one of my favorite museums in all the world) which has the ground floor dedicated to Viking history--authentic chain-mail of the type mentioned in the poem and much more. Free entry. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation...eum_of_Denmark

Also in Norway, there is a terrific museum containing longships excavated from barrows, burial mounds. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viking...eum_%28Oslo%29

And in England, don't miss the Sutton Ho burial exhibition at the British Museum. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sutton_Hoo

In Sweden, I say don't miss the Gold Room at http://historiska.se/utstallningar/guldrummet/

That said, thanks again for your contributions to the Beowulf translation. To which I shall now return.

Janice