Read on Twitter
OKAY SO. After the defeat of Grendel and Grendel's Mother, Beowulf leaves Hrothgar to return to Geatland. Here's a thread on how diff. translators handle the same passage, and some points on how every translation always has its own goals. https://twitter.com/onlysaysficus/status/1360282251678933001
In Burton Raffel's translation (1963), which was sort of the standard for a while but makes some ehh choices in favor of being easy to read, describes (in my opinion) the gayest, most touching goodbye I have read in a while.
Here Hrothgar and Beowulf's bond is rather amorphous, characterized by strong emotion and another vague though that Hrothgar's emotion stems from the fact he will not see Beowulf again.
This is used to catapult us into a description of the kind of "good death" that someone like Hrothgar gets, essentially dying in the good regards of his people. However, emotion rules this goodbye in a way that is never quite defined, and leaves a LOT of room for interpretation.
Raffel is translating to make sure things are easy to read and that the poem is translated clearly into English. Clarity is a driving force for him, so some portions of this passage are simplified, specifically, there are parts of Hrothgar's interior thoughts cut by Raffel.
In Heaney's translation (1999), essentially the new standard translation, shares the sentiment but elaborates on what drives Hrothgar's response far more than what Raffel does.
The "two forebodings" are the important part in this section. The first is Hrothgar's realization that he will not live to see Beowulf again, but the second isn't stated. This is an accurate translation, as the second foreboding isn't clarified in the Old Enlgish either.
Heaney remains true to the text first and foremost, but still doesn't give us a characterization for Hrothgar's response to Beowulf's departure. His translation is quite lyrical, but also meant to be an accurate translation before a "pleasant" one.
Chiefly, he's examining the work from both a story and structure perspective, using his translation to create an "anchor point" from which to study Anglo-Saxon poetic structure and its evolution into modern language.
Then, there's Headley's translation from this year. Headley makes a lot of clarifications in regards to character and motivation that the other two do not, while also making some of her own unique (and conflicting) choices.
Here, Beowulf is clearly "like a son" to Hrothgar, something that also draws a connection to Wealtheow's earlier insistence that Hrothgar should focus on his real actual children instead of treating Beowulf like one. Also, the two forebodings return, but this time...
Headley clarifies what the second foreboding is: that Beowulf will die in flame, even if he stays with the Danes. There's a couple things to say about this. Firstly, it's not actually a translation but instead an inference/creative liberty Headley takes.
There isn't a textual basis for the second foreboding's meaning, so instead Headley seems to use it to incorporate her own ideas about the text, especially since she is working with ideas of power, and, chiefly, Fate. Beowulf is Fated to die by the dragon's hand...
...regardless of where he ends up, because, of course, he doesn't die with the Danes, but with his own people. Headley is saying that death is not only inevitable, but that it follows even the greatest hero around.
Beowulf will die in flame, no matter where he runs, no matter what he does. The dragon will be where Beowulf is regardless because that is simply what has to happen. Of course, this fits with the narrative of Fate that Headley employs (Grendel is a creature "fucked by Fate")...
...but it also makes a large assumption about the nature of the OE. Is that a bad thing? Not necessarily. Translations always have intent, no matter how straightforward they claim to be, because these words and grammatical structures don't exist in our language.
They must be contextualized, and different people will contextualize them in different ways. Headley makes a strong inference with the text, but it acts in service to her view of the story without completely altering its course. Ultimately, this is what translation always does.
Translation is flawed and always will be. However, these flaws can also be major strengths, and highlight the ways in which we can all live in the same world and within the same systems, but will have radically different experiences. It should not go...
...unspoken that Headley is the first woman to translate this poem in a long line of men. Her translation is beautiful, and probably my favorite I've read so far (and I hope to read many more). While it's really fun for me to look at this description of...
...love and farewell and thanks and project my own queer identity onto it in the hopes of establishing a silent history of my own existence in one of the most prolific works in English history, that too is a translation.
Does that make it less valid? No. Does it mean that it couldn't also possibly be true? Of course not! Everyone involved in this text was long dead, and we can never 100% know that degree of authorial intent without more primary sources. Ultimately, however, translation...
...and by extension all works, will mean different things to different people. It is important and fruitful to analyze these differences, and rather than dismiss them as merely "projection," to include them in the conversations we have about these works...
to research them, and to consider them going forward. No one voice owns Beowulf, or determines unarguably what a heartfelt goodbye between an old king and the man who saved his kingdom means. These works are ours, ours to love, read, and understand as the individuals we are.
