18 May 2009
Because it is a manuscript, and a damaged one at that, there is no single “definitive” version of the poem. So if you’re looking for a version of the poem to read, which one should you chose? I’m only familiar with a small number of the extant versions, so I will necessarily skip some good ones, but here are some that you can’t go wrong with.
Most people are going to want to read it in translation. While that’s a shame—the Old English is so much better than any existing translation—it is understandable. Most people aren’t going to devote the time needed to read it in the Old English.
Seamus Heaney’s translation is perhaps the most readily available and, no surprise coming from a Nobel laureate poet, is a masterful translation. It’s a work of art in its own right. But it is most definitely “Seamus Heaney’s Beowulf.” Heaney does deviate from the manuscript text significantly, not in any narrative sense, but his is by no means a line-by-line translation. In one sense, this is good, allowing the modern reader to experience some approximation of the Old English meter and diction while still comprehending the meaning without grammatical contortions. Heaney provides the Old English text as well, so it can serve double-duty for those who want both the original and a translation.
For a more accurate, albeit less artistic, translation, R.M. Liuzza’s translation is an excellent choice.
For years, the standard Old English version was Klaeber’s. The fourth edition of Klaeber’s is what I used for my project. This is a new version, published in 2008, and edited by R.D. Fulk, Robert E. Bjork, and John D. Niles. Editorially, Fulk, et al. make some controversial interpretations of certain passages, however. But they make up for this with their exhaustive and excellent commentary on the poem. And since it’s new, the commentary is up to date with the latest trends in criticism. If you’re teaching a course, this is a superb choice for a text and even the problematic editorial judgments can be turned into teaching points about the nature of manuscripts and the editorial process.
If you want a more conservative Old English text, Dobbie’s 1953 version is a good choice, although the commentary and apparatus is dated. Dobbie may be a bit difficult to find, although reprint editions are still in print.
Finally, for those really interested in the poem, Zupitza’s version is worth a look. It’s an 1882 edition, but it includes facsimile pages of the manuscript. It’s still available in reprint editions, but unless you are a serious Beowulf scholar, it’s probably not worth investing in a copy. Find it in your local university library to take a look at the images of the manuscript pages. A lower-quality version can be found in Google Books, and that is definitely worth taking a gander at.
