Beowulf: A Translation and Commentary, together with Sellic Spell

by J. R. R. Tolkien

  [In this set of lectures my father had in fact passed over the problem presented by lines 134–5, *168–9, despite his words that follow here.]

  134–5; *168–9

  Now we must return to the crux which we have left behind unsolved. This couplet is perhaps the most difficult in Beowulf. But that in itself is a warning. In its own style and diction Beowulf is not an obscure poem, far from it: it is on the whole, once you know the words, easier to read than other Old English verse. It is legitimate, therefore, at the outset to suspect that we are faced by either corruption or alteration of the original text.

  But the couplet does not appear to be corrupt: no one has seriously attempted to find relief in emendation, at any rate no emendation worthy of consideration has ever been proposed. The crux is one of translation.

  [I give here the Old English text and the translation in the full text together, as fully as is needed to follow the argument.

  164 Swá fela fyrena féond mancynnes,

  atol ángengea oft gefremede

  heardra hýnða; Heorot eardode,

  sincfáge sel sweartum nihtum;

  168 nó hé þone gifstól grétan móste

  máþðum for Metode, né his myne wisse.

  Þæt wæs wrǽc micel wine Scyldinga,

  módes brecða.

  131–6 Thus many a deed of evil that foe of men stalking dreadfully alone did often work, many a grievous outrage; in Heorot’s hall bright with gems in the dark nights he dwelt. Never might he approach the precious Throne of grace in the presence of God, [Who took no thought of him >] nor did he know His will. That was great torment to the Scyldings’ lord, anguish of heart.]

  The difficulties are these: what are the references of hé *168, his *169? hé = Grendel, Hrothgar, Metod, gifstól, maþðum? Also the exact sense of grétan, of maþðum, and of myne wisse are all in doubt.

  Now at first sight it looks as if hé was Grendel, and the gifstól was Hrothgar’s throne, and a contrast is intended between the normal behaviour of a loyal thane in the hall and the conduct of the wicked intruder who did not recognize the lawful authority of the king. And in favour of hé = Grendel is the fact that Grendel has been the subject since *164, 131. But before we can test this assumption we have to consider the doubtful words.

  grétan means fundamentally ‘hail, address, greet’, but in Old English, through the usages ‘accost, address oneself to’ it may be used (as a litotes) for ‘assail’; or it may come to mean or imply ‘set hand to, touch’ (as in gomenwudu gréted *1065, ‘the harp was touched to mirth’ 868–9). But we perceive that the most natural sense of gifstól grétan is not ‘touch’ but ‘hail, address the throne (of gifts)’. maþm means a gift, and so can of course repeat or refer to the gif-element in gifstól; but it cannot refer to the whole gifstól – it cannot mean ‘the throne’. Maþm is a thing given in exchange or as reward (‘a precious thing’ only secondarily); and kings, even in fairy-story, do not give away their thrones. It is however a thing that a king on his throne might give, so it seems clear that grétan is used in two slightly different senses: to address (approach), and to lay hands on, touch.

  myne is a noun related to munan as cyme [‘coming’] is to cuman. munan means ‘think of, have in mind or purpose’. myne thus means ‘thinking of (a person or thing) – intention, will – recollection’. Actually elsewhere it is mostly recorded in a good sense, so that contextually it may mean ‘good will (towards), kind thought (of)’. Now witan in Old English can be used with verbal nouns in the sense ‘know, feel’: as witan ege ‘feel fear, fear’. So witan myne could be taken to mean ‘have thought or memory (of).’ But the usual sense in verse is purpose, wish, and, if an accompanying genitive is present, it is subjective not objective (as in the frequent módes myne). So that clearly ne his myne wisse is most likely to mean ‘and did not know his purpose/wish’. But it might mean ‘and did not have thought for/of him’.

  But it must be observed that unless a fresh hé is put in – by a direct emendation – before his – the subject of wisse must be the same as the subject of móste; as the line stands the subject cannot possibly be God.

  With these preliminaries it will at once be found that the throne cannot be Hrothgar’s. ‘Grendel could not touch (or approach) the bountiful throne, receive a gift in the presence of (or because of) God, and knew not His purpose (or took no thought of Him).’ This certainly would not be módes brecða (*171) to Hrothgar, even if it were true. But could it be? Why could Grendel not approach the throne, when he was in sole control of Heorot all night? There was no magical or divine protection over the throne any more than over the hall or its inhabitants, and no doubt Grendel could have sat in the king’s throne and gnawed bones there (which would be módes brecða perhaps). And it is no solution to reply that what is meant is that Grendel could not come before the throne and get a maþum, like an honest þegn. For he could have done so, if he wished. Lines *154–8 (123–7) declare that he did not wish to do so. Had he desired peace or truce the Danes would have welcomed him. It was not Metod but Grendel’s wickedness that cut him off from the dréam [e.g. Beowulf *88, ‘the din of revelry’ 72]. And in any case we see how ill for Metode fits into any such attempt at a rendering.

  It becomes plain therefore that the language is theological. gifstól is God’s throne, and is an example of the frequent use of heroic language with theological import; gif- (and its equivalent maþum) refers to divine grace or mercy. So giefstól = God’s throne in [Cynewulf’s poem] Crist, line 572.

  Try again. ‘Never (or in no wise) could he have recourse to the gracious throne and its bounty in the presence of God (or because of God, i.e. because God did not allow this); and he knew not His will.’ Grendel certainly is under God’s curse, as a descendant of Cain; but that idea does not come in here, because unless you insert a new hé (as I have said), ne his myne wisse cannot be twisted to have any such sense as ‘nor did He (God) have thought of him’.

  Indeed, is this remark certainly applied to Grendel? No. Indeed (I think) it is certainly not. The fact that Grendel was cut off from mercy has been dealt with, and is not particularly interesting at this point. It certainly was not part of Hrothgar’s torment. No, to my mind it is clearly Hrothgar who is referred to. To begin a new matter with hé and only introduce the new name later (wine Scyldinga) is a frequent practice of the Beowulf poet. It is specially clumsy here, perhaps, for the shift in reference of hé (after eardode ‘dwelt’ *166 = Grendel) is sudden. But this shift is nothing like so awkward as the attempt to make the couplet (*168–9) part of Hrothgar’s wræc, as it must be if hé still refers to Grendel.

  The suddenness of the shift is, I think, due to the fact that this little couplet (dealing with grace and the position of heathens with regard to God) is an interpolation or elaboration probably by the same hand as altered the following passage. Notice that it is – a very rare thing in Beowulf – detachable without damage to metre, and with improvement in coherence. For though doubtless inability to pray for mercy would be módes brecða to Hrothgar, it is fairly clear that módes brecða really refers to the ravages of Grendel and the death of his thanes. To my mind it seems plain that Swá fela fyrena *164 (131, ‘Thus many a deed of evil’) once stood much closer to Swá ðá mǽlceare *189 (151, ‘Even thus over the sorrows of that time’).

  The excision of the couplet *168–9, and of *180–8 (143 ‘nor knew they the Creator’–150) would much improve the whole sequence,10 even if we assume that (say) one and a half to two and a half lines of the ‘untinkered’ poem after *180 are now removed and lost. We will translate therefore:

  He (Hrothgar) could not in any way (or ever) approach the throne of grace, receiving a gift before God, and he did not know His will. This, though not the possible alternative, ‘and he did not take thought of Him’, would not be wholly inconsistent with the main poem. But in fact it is more likely to come from the hand of the man who wrote Metod híe ne cúþon, ne wiston híe Drihten God. [See further pp. 309–12.]


  151–2 Even thus over the sorrows of that time did the son of Healfdene brood unceasingly; *189–90 Swá ðá mǽlceare maga Healfdenes singála séað

  séað [past tense of séoðan, modern English seethe]: cf. *1992–3 Ic ðæs módceare sorhwylmum séað (1674–6 ‘On this account did care about my heart well ever up in surging sorrow’). The Old English poets describe the emotions – especially of great grief, [?] injury, or frustrated wrath – in terms of a boiling pot. The wylmas (hot upswelling surges) rise and burn the hreþer or inwards. The word wylm (wælm, welm) is related to weallan ‘boil, surge’ (intransitive). It is of course usually used literally of bubblings, gushings, surges, and only of emotions in such compounds as sorg-, bréost, cear-.

  (Note. Except in Beowulf *2507–8 hildegráp heortan wylmas, bánhús gebræc, of Dæghrefn crushed to death by Beowulf. But here it is really physical: heortan wylmas = heart’s throbs = throbbing heart. [Translation 2107–9: ‘a warrior’s gripe it was that quenched his beating heart crushing his frame of bones.’] The word survives for instance in Ewelme (near Oxford), which is not named after two trees but from O.E. ǽ-welm ‘out-gush’, the name of a spring.)

  The verb séoðan also meant ‘boil’, but unlike its modern descendant was transitive, meaning ‘set to boil, cook (by boiling)’. It thus implies a protracted and conscious and introspective process – which we by a different metaphor (but still one referring to keeping things ‘hot’) call ‘brooding’.

  163–4 With that voyage little fault did wise men find; *202–3 Ðone síðfæt him snotere ceorlas lýthwón lógon

  lýthwón: adverb, ‘very little’. This habit of ‘understatement’ (because it may become a habit, and that is a ‘linguistic idiom’ no longer having any special effect) is very common in Old English. Here all that is required for one engaged in reading the text is to realize that the literal ‘found very little fault with that journey’ does not mean that their objections were not important though they made some; it does not even mean they found nothing to say against it (as in modern English ‘he little knows what’s coming to him’ = ‘he has no idea’) and said ‘Very well, go if you wish’. It means they applauded the project. Just as the unwáclícne ‘not mean or shabby’ of the funeral pyre of Beowulf (*3138; 2636 ‘not niggardly’) means ‘with lavish splendour’.

  How you would render this in modern language is less important than appreciation of the actual implication of the Old English words. Sometimes the original understatement will fit, sometimes not. In Old English understatement is not a mere colloquial habit, though it is, as it were, a linguistic mood. It comes very frequently at points of ‘high colour’ – where later (mediæval) romancers would tend to heap up words and superlatives – as though the poet (and the linguistic mood that he inherited) suddenly realized that shouting merely deafens and that at times it is more effective to lower the voice.

  [At this point my father ‘recommended to the attention’ of his audience the feast in Heorot on the night of Beowulf’s arrival, *491–8.]

  Then for the Geatish knights together in company a bench was made free in the drinking-hall. There to their seats went those men stout of heart, resplendent in valour. An esquire his office heeded, he that bore in hand the jewelled ale-goblet, and poured gleaming out the sweet drink. Ever and anon a minstrel sang clear in Heorot. There was mirth of mighty men, no little assembly of the manhood of Danes and Weder-Geatas.

  [If this is compared with the same passage in the full translation of the poem, 398–405, it will be seen that my father had it in front of him, for this version differs from it in only a very few points. This has been observed earlier p. 173.]

  Heroic, restrained, moving – relying on the effect of the metre and one or two ‘laden’ words full of implication: deall, duguð. [þrýðum dealle *494, ‘resplendent in their strength’ 400; duguð unlýtel *498, ‘no little assembly of the tried valour’ 404.]

  (Note. deall: a poetic word (preserved only in Old English verse) – meaning as near as we can get to ‘resplendent’, since it evidently properly referred to outward and visual richness and brightness; but it is here by that compressive art of Old English poetry applied to þrýð ‘strength’, so that those acquainted with the idiom, or acquiring an understanding of it, can with the maximum economy receive a picture of tall, physically admirable men of such a mien that appraising eyes passed over their costly armour to their stature and bearing.

  duguð: a word meaning ‘proven worth’, but already long applied to the body of older and war-tried men as contrasted with the iuguð: the youths, esquires, and men of mere promise; so that duguð unlýtel conveyed a vision of many proud and stern faces in the torch and fire light.)

  It is just a glimpse of ‘description’ interspersed with actions and the clash of persons – briefly repeated in *611–12 (Ðær wæs hæleþa hleahtor, hlyn swynsode, word wǽron wynsume; 497–8 ‘There was laughter of mighty men, the din of singing; sweet were the words’). But it may be contrasted with the New Year’s feast at Camelot in Sir Gawain and the Green Knight. There the author is suddenly aware that he must get on with the action: ‘Now wyl I of hor seruise say yow no more’, he cries, ‘for vch wyȝe [everyone] may wel wit no wont þat þer were’ (Gawain 130–1). But how much better to say less and not say so! Yet he is relatively modest. For the full vulgarity of shouting and overstatement you must look at the feast when in the alliterative Morte Arthure Arthur entertains the embassy of Rome [see The Fall of Arthur, 2013, p. 80]. Leaving aside the disgusting and incredible description of the food, for the þegn (*494, ‘an esquire’ 401) or the gracious queen Wealhtheow, performing her ancient rite of presenting the ceremonial cup to the king and afterwards honouring the chief guest (498 ff., *612 ff.), we have Sir Cay, the king’s chief butler, busy with Arthur’s goblets – sixty of them! (Morte Arthure 170–219).

  This Old English understatement – allied though it is to the taste of the time, and to a mood of language that preferred compression and brevity (as in the kenning) – is frequent enough. I might have commented on it earlier: e.g. on Nalæs hí hine lǽssan lácum téodan (*43, 33–4), literally ‘they did not array him with less gift-offerings’ = ‘they arrayed him with far more’ – but with an additional catch: he came without any gifts or accoutrements whatsoever. He was féasceaft funden (*7), ‘destitute’ (‘forlorn’ 5), alone, a child, in a small boat – with (according to some surviving traditions) only a corn-sheaf beside him.

  Both these passages illustrate two points: one, that the ‘meaning’ of the poet cannot be arrived at by a mere bald literal translation, or by warming it up with modern diction, without appreciating the idiom; and two, that we constantly need to know more than we do (tackling Beowulf direct and without any previous knowledge). So in *43 we need some idea of the ‘Sheaf’ tradition; here [i.e. 163–5, *202–3] (probably) some of the folk-lore out of which in part Beowulf as a character came. Though the poet finds it necessary to add ‘dear though he were to them’ (164–5) (since Beowulf is now in the position of sister-son to the king [Hygelac; see 300–1], a position of traditional love and affection) the eager applause with which Beowulf’s desire to go away on an adventure [was greeted] is very likely derived from a fairy-tale situation in which men were glad to be rid of the strong loutish youth. Cf. *2183 ff. Héan wæs lange, swá hyne Géata bearn gódne ne tealdon, etc. (1835 ff. ‘Long was he contemned, for the sons of the Geats did not account him worthy’, etc.).

  165–6 they observed the omens; *204 hǽl scéawedon

  Tacitus in his Germania [chapter X] says that the Germanii paid the greatest attention to ‘auspices’ and ‘lots’: auspicia sortesque ut qui maxime observant. Not that in fact they appear to have differed in this from other ‘Indo-European’ peoples, or the Romans of an earlier period, as the word auspex ‘bird-observer’ for omen observing shows, and auspicium (whence our ‘auspicious occasion’ in which as here in Beowulf the ‘omens’ are assumed to be good).

  It is interesti
ng to consider why the author left in this reference to heathen practice, without comment.

  171–82; *210–24

  A good passage of description. The long march to the sea is compressed to fyrst forð gewát (‘Time passed on’, 171). For a moment the vision is of a cliff-top, the boat is seen below half drawn up prow foremost on the sand; we see the men busy lading it, then pushing it with oars or poles out into the water. The wind fills the sails, and it is off swiftly, as marked by the foam at the prow, like a white gull, which gives an impression of increasing distance, catching the gleam of far off cliffs and mountains in a strange land.

  Compare the description in Cynewulf’s poem Elene, 225–3511 of Elene’s sailing to the Holy Land, in which the effort to deal with a far more important occasion has led only to a piling up of poetic vocabulary for ships and the sea with no real affective picture at all.

  [In his prefatory essay On Metre to the revised edition (1940) of the translation of Beowulf by J.R. Clark Hall (reprinted in The Monsters and the Critics and Other Essays, 1983) my father chose this passage, the voyage of the Geats to Denmark, as the exemplifying text in Old English, together with an alliterative translation: this I have cited, for comparison with his prose translation (171 ff.), in my introductory note to the latter, pp. 9–10.]

  181–2; *223–4

  [My father expended a great deal of time and thought on certain passages in Beowulf that go by the name of cruces: when the text is peculiarly hard to interpret for one reason or another and where competing emendations lie thick on the ground. In this case his discussion of the line runs to many pages of a closely-reasoned examination, much too long to be included here; but the matter will be seen to be of interest when considering the relative dating of his writings on Beowulf. Here therefore I cite his initial statement of the problems, and give a brief indication of his favoured solutions, omitting his closely argued and convincing discussions.]