Review: Beowulf: A New Translation, by Maria Dahvana Headley

Cover of Headley’s Beowulf: A New Translation

Cover of Headley’s Beowulf: A New Translation

29 August 2020

Headley, Maria Dahvana. Beowulf: A New Translation. New York: Farrar, Strauss, and Giroux, 2020.

Joy.

That is the primary emotion I felt as I was reading Maria Dahvana Headley’s new translation of Beowulf. That’s not an emotion I normally associate with Beowulf, a 1,000+year-old, brooding, elegiac poem, written in a language that can barely be recognized as English, about men and monsters that is obsessed with how one should be remembered after one’s death. Don’t get me wrong. I love Beowulf. It is perhaps my favorite work of literature, but it is not a poem that tends to bring a smile to one’s face. Yet, Headley’s translation did that all the while I was reading it.

The most obvious feature about Headley’s translation is her use of present-day slang and idiom. She translates the first word of the poem, the famous Hwæt!, as Bro! The monster Grendel is fucked by fate. And Beowulf himself is Hygelac’s hit man, who at one point gives zero shits. In the hands of less-skilled writer this approach would be laughably silly, but Headley’s translation manages to simultaneously position the poem in a time long past while making it relevant to the current now. For instance, in the passage about the bad king Heremod, lines 1718–20, Headley writes:

                                    Somehow, though, his heart
was not a hawk but a drone. He bombed his own bases,
denied his Danes damages, kept entrenched in combat.

Is it anachronistic? Of course it is, but compare it to R.D. Fulk’s more “faithful” translation (which is also excellent, but in a very different way) of the same lines:

His breasthoard nonetheless grew bloodthirsty in spirit, by no means gave rings to the Danes for their glory.

By comparing Heremod’s failures of leadership to those of recent U.S. presidents, Headley makes the poem instantly accessible to the present-day reader, more than any ring-giving or breasthoards can do.

But this is not say the Headley’s translation isn’t faithful to the original. She translates line by line, never diverging from the story or pace of the original. Using the line numbers as reference, one can move almost effortlessly from her translation to the original. I found myself reading it with a copy of the Old English at hand, at first to check how accurate a translation it was, but soon because her translation kept bringing out details and nuances in the original that I had never noticed before. Her translation has made me appreciate the original all the more.

Her prosody is also evocative. It is virtually impossible to write good present-day English in the alliterative meter of the Old English original. Not only are the stresses and cadences of today’s language different, but we no longer have the reservoir of synonyms that make it possible to successfully alliterate over a 3,182-line poem. But Headley, using irregular meter, captures the rhythm and flow of the text. For instance, here is a passage I translated into prose the other day, before reading her book. Hrothgar is speaking to Beowulf at the feast after the warrior has killed Grendel’s mother, lines 1761–68:

                      Nu is þines mægnes blæd
ane hwile;     eft sona bið
þæt þec adl oððe ecg    eafoþes getwæfeð,
oððe fyres feng,     oððe flodes wylm,
oððe gripe meces,     oððe gares fliht,
oððe atol yldo;                 oððe eagena bearhtm
forsiteð ond forsworceð;     semninga bið
þæt ðec, dryht-guma,     deað oferswyðeð.

(Now, for a time, is the glory of your might: soon disease or blade will separate you from your strength, or the fire’s embrace, or the flood’s welling, or the sword’s grasp, or the spear’s flight, or the horrors of age; or the brightness of your eyes will fail and dim; at last it will be death that overcomes you, warrior.)

Now Headley’s translation of the same lines:

It’s only a season
that a young soldier’s strength stays stalwart—
before plague or blade bring obsolescence. A crackling
blaze, a rush of waves, a slippery sword-grip,
a spear soaring silently through the air,
or even the ague of age. Your gaze will darken, too, boy.
Your world will dim. Death will kneel over you eventually.
and solicit your surrender.

As with any translation, Headley is forced to make choices. Translation is a form of interpretation, especially from Old English where we often know the denotation of the words but not their connotations. It is clear that she had a vision of what she wanted to accomplish, and her choices are consistent, creating a coherent whole. And in some places, her interventions are inspired. For instance, in the manuscript at line 62 the scribe has omited the name of Hrothgar’s sister, and to mark this lacuna, Headley writes the parenthetical (her name’s a blur). Toward the end of the poem, as Wiglaf is facing the dragon, lines 2673–74 read:

Byrne ne meahte / geongum garwigan

(The mail-shirt was of no use to the young warrior)

Which Headley translates as:

His mail-shirt was like linen to her

turning a declarative statement into a simile that makes the encounter seem more tangible and desperate.

And throughout the episode with the dragon Headley uses female pronouns for the dragon instead of the male ones in the Old English, creating implications for the text that I’m still processing.

Another significant change is in how Headley casts the narrator. The Old English text has a Christian narrator telling a story of a pagan past and making moral and theological judgments in the process. For a reader today, this creates a further separation that did not exist for those early medieval folks reading or listening to the poem; the narrator is contemporaneous with them. But today, that framing distances the reader from both the narrator as well as from the story. Headley downplays or omits the theological commentary, while leaving the biblical references in place. This, coupled with the fact that both narrator and characters are speaking in the present-day vernacular, lessens the chronological distances and brings the story into today. Reading it, one gets the sense that narrator is telling us of events that happened only a short while ago.

In other places, Headley emphasizes details that are easy to miss or makes the implicit explicit, and sometimes she supplies a useful corrective to past translations. This is most easily seen in the passages with female characters, and nowhere clearer than with Grendel’s Mother. For example, line 1259 of the poem describes her as an ides aglæca. The word ides means woman and is almost always applied to queens and biblical matriarchs. And aglæca means opponent or warrior, applied to Beowulf himself, Grendel, and the dragon. Yet past male translators have rendered the line as ogress (Tolkien), monstrous hell-bride (Heaney), monster-woman (Liuzza), and lady, female-troublemaker (Fulk). Headley gives us the literal, straightforward translation of warrior-woman, providing a very different perspective on both her and on Beowulf, the man who kills her. Headley is not the first woman to translate Beowulf, but most of the translators have been men, and as with Emily Wilson’s translation of the Odyssey, it’s useful to be shaken out of the masculine perspective, especially with a poem like Beowulf, which drips testosterone.

I cannot recommend this translation more highly. It is accessible to the reader who has never encountered Beowulf before, yet it intrigues and challenges those who study the poem professionally. Nothing in it lessens the beauty or power of the original Old English, which is still there, along with the other more “faithful” translations, for those who want to tackle it. I can only hope that this translation not only attracts a new cohort of readers to one of the gems of English literature, but allows those already familiar with the poem to see new ways that it connects to the twenty-first century.

Discuss this post

Geoffrey Nunberg (1945–2020)

12 August 2020

Linguist Geoffrey Nunberg, 75, died yesterday. Nunberg was one of the leading public voices in the field of linguistics. He was, perhaps, best known for being a regular commentator about language since 1988 on NPR’s Fresh Air. But he was also the author of many popular books and scholarly articles in the field.

You can read Mark Liberman’s remarks about him on Language Log.

His Google Scholar page lists his publications.

And a sampling of his Fresh Air pieces is here.

He will be missed.

irregardless

8 July 2020

A message popped up in my Facebook feed the other day which read,

In case you thought 2020 couldn’t get any worse, Merriam-Webster just officially recognized “irregardless” as a word.

Since then, I’ve seen it pop up multiple times on Twitter, retweeted by a number of people, many of whom should know better.

There are so many things wrong with this statement, it’s hard to know where to begin. The facts are wrong. It displays a complete misunderstanding not only of dictionaries but of language itself. It reflects a reactionary impulse to reject anything that does not conform to one’s worldview. It is elitist, and the impulse to enforce “correct” speech, or tone policing, is a tried and true tactic used to suppress speech of marginalized peoples.

First the facts. Merriam-Webster has not just added irregardless to its dictionary. It has been in their dictionary since 1934, and people have been using the word since at least 1795. Furthermore, almost every dictionary includes it. I don’t even know of one that doesn’t. And most of those dictionaries include a usage note cautioning against the word’s use. Here’s Merriam-Webster’s:

Irregardless is a long way from winning general acceptance as a standard English word. For that reason, it is best to use regardless instead.  

Second, it displays a misunderstanding of dictionaries. Most dictionaries, including all of the good ones, are descriptive in their editorial policies. They seek to describe how words are used. They are not prescriptive, i.e., they don’t dictate how words should be used. There is no “official” dictionary or academy of English that puts its imprimatur on particular words or uses. Dictionaries do not “officially recognize” words. They just include the ones that they have determined will be useful to their readers. People keep using irregardless, and that’s why all those dictionaries include it.

Third, it displays a misunderstanding of language itself. Of course, irregardless is a word. It has a recognizable pronunciation and spelling. It has a commonly understood meaning; no one misunderstands someone who uses it. (And it has a single meaning, unlike some words that no one objects to, like non-plussed, biweekly, peruse, cleave, or sanction, which have meanings or connotations that contradict one another and are often genuinely confusing.) The objection seems to be is that the meaning as used is illogical in that it is contrary to the meaning conveyed by its component parts. But language is not logical. It is an accretive, crowd-sourced creation, and the meaning of its words change over time. As lexicographer Peter Sokolowski has observed, people don’t object to December because it doesn’t denote the tenth month of the year.

Many people believe there is such a thing as “correct” or “standard” English, but such a thing does not exist. There are many different Englishes. There are hundreds of millions of mutually intelligible idiolects that we group into a dialect or language that we call English. And an individual uses different words and phrases in different social contexts. How I address my students is different than how I talk with my friends down at the pub. The language I use in a paper for publication in a peer-reviewed journal is different from the language I use on this website. And there is a myriad of regional and ethnic dialects, themselves sub-groupings under the all-encompassing rubric of English.

Irregardless is one of those lexical bête noires that continually receive attention when other words, which are just as or even more objectionable, pass unnoticed. Irregardless is a rallying point, a hill that those who consider themselves linguistic stalwarts have chosen to die on. They think they are defending English from the barbarian hordes, but just like the fall of Rome, the belief doesn’t accord with the facts. The barbarians didn’t conquer Rome; it never “fell.” The so-called barbarians simply became Romans. There is no “well of English undefiled” to defend.  

In the case of irregardless, this is just sad. Use of the word is not restricted to any particular group or segment of the population. But the tendency toward this elitism can have sinister results when it is directed at the speech and writing of marginalized classes and ethnic groups. It ends up suppressing voices and means of expression. It excludes those who don’t speak in the “approved” or “official” manner. And the real objection to “non-standard” words is that “those people” are being let into the club. The barbarians are being allowed to become Roman.

Having said all this, do I recommend people use irregardless? No, although I don’t get riled up when I hear someone use it, and I am sure to have used it myself in unguarded moments—and I suspect most of those objecting to it have as well. And in fact, I do correct it on my students’ papers when they use it. I do this because there is one good reason for not using it. That is precisely because so many people object to it, and there is an unobjectionable alternative available in regardless. Careful writers do not use words or phrases that would distract users from the message that they wish to convey. If the reader stops and considers the writer’s command of the language, then the writer has failed. (Good writers will often use distinctive words and phrases that call attention to or reinforce their message, but that’s a different thing.) If people would stop objecting to it, then it would become a perfectly good word to use, and the difference between irregardless and regardless would be same as between while and whilst or in regard to and in regards to, a matter of personal preference and style.

Discuss this post


Sources:

Merriam-Webster.com, s.v. irregardless, accessed 8 July 2020.

Sokolowski, Peter. Tweet, 7 July 2020.

Dates and Dating of Sources and Entries

9 May 2020

I want to comment on four types of dates you will find here on wordorigins.org: dates of first known use of word or phrase; dates of scholarship and proposed etymologies; the publication dates of the editions of the Oxford English Dictionary; and the dates of entries on this site’s Big List.

Dates of First Use

Regarding the first known use of a word or phrase—and this applies not only to this site but to any source that lists early uses of a term—most of the time the date given is not the date the term was first used. It’s just the earliest that the particular researcher or team of researchers has been able to identify. Most terms are first used in speech, and no record of those early uses exists. And given that most printed texts haven’t been digitized (what Google and others have done to date is only the tip of the iceberg), and those that have are often split up among various, unlinked, proprietary databases, one can expect that earlier uses, i.e., antedatings, will eventually be found. The first citations given by recent, well-researched sources should be pretty close in time to the term’s coinage, but they’re probably not the first ever use.

Dating gets dicier with older terms, especially medieval ones. Before the advent of the printing press, books were expensive and rare. And most medieval texts that were produced have not survived, and the further back you go, the fewer texts we have. So, what we have is only a fraction of what once was. Plus, dating a medieval text is often difficult. We usually can tell with fair precision when a manuscript was copied, but the extant manuscripts are rarely the original copy, and we often don’t know when a medieval work was composed. This is especially true of many Old English poetic texts, those written before the Norman Conquest. Because the dating these very old texts is so uncertain, I generally don’t give dates for Old English examples.

In rare cases, we can tell with precision when a term was coined—this happens more often with scientific and technical terms than with other types, as writers in the sciences tend to note when they are using a term that is unfamiliar to their community. When this is the case, I will indicate it.

Dates of Scholarship and Proposed Etymologies

Often when one is searching for early uses of a term, one will find an early use that includes an etymology or explanation of the term’s origin. It is tempting to lend credibility to these early explanations. After all, they are closer to the origin of the term than we are today, we think that people in the past may have known better. But, as a general rule, it is a mistake to make this assumption. For one, more recent scholarship is almost always better. Recent work will take into account these older explanations, as well as all the scholarship that has been produced in the meantime. Also, today we have access to more texts from the relevant period than earlier scholars, even those who were working only a few decades ago, have. Simply stated, we know now more than we knew then. Another reason to take early explanations with a grain of salt is that often they are amateurish speculation, not based on any solid evidence.

Dates of OED Editions

The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) is the go-to reference for anything having to do with English words or phrases. It is massive and well-researched. It’s not perfect, but it’s as near to perfect as one could expect for a reference on such a comprehensive topic. It exists in three major editions, with various supplements and additions in between. The first edition was published in sections from 1884–1928. The second edition is a partial revision published in 1989; it incorporates the supplements to the dictionary that were produced between 1928–89 and revises and adds to of certain entries, but many of the entries were left untouched from the first edition. So, if you go to the OED website, many of the entries have been unchanged since the nineteenth century. The editors began work on the third edition in 2000. This edition is an ongoing, complete revision of the dictionary, with updates published online every three months.

That means when I reference the OED second edition on wordorigins.org, the entry could be considerably older than 1989, as much as a hundred years older. When referencing the third edition, I give the month and year of the relevant update.

When faced with an older OED entry, I do my best to find antedatings and updated scholarship from other sources, but I’m a single researcher, and there is only so much I can do.

Big List Dates

Finally, I come to the dates for entries on this site’s Big List. Please take a look at the date of the entry as you read it. Just as the general rule is to favor new scholarship over old, in my particular case you should favor my more recent work over my older work.

I started this website in 1997. Back then, I had no formal training in etymology or linguistics, and I had little access to high-quality scholarship and databases of texts. The earliest dates for entries in the Big List are from 2006 and 2007, but those dates are deceptive. I conducted a major overhaul and restructuring of the website in those years, but the content the entries is often older, going back as far as 1997. I’ve conducted another structural overhaul in 2020, but this time I’ve kept the original dates for older entries.

I’ve started methodically going through the old entries, updating them. But this is a work in progress; as of today, many of the old 1997 entries remain pretty much untouched (and misdated).

Another reason to favor the newer work is that I went back to graduate school in 2007, completing my PhD in medieval English language and literature in 2016. During that period, I greatly improved my knowledge and research skills. (Emphasis on the latter. The true value of a PhD is not that it makes you smarter or more knowledgeable—the subject-matter expertise of anyone with a PhD is incredibly narrow. What a PhD really teaches you is how to conduct solid research.) I also obtained access to the libraries at major research libraries, starting with the University of California, Berkeley, then on to the University of Toronto and Texas A&M, and most recently Princeton University. The research resources available to me now are for all practical purposes infinitely better than when I started. (This last is especially true since I’ve gained access to the libraries at Princeton. I don’t want to cast shade on those other libraries, which are all excellent, but Princeton has incredibly deep pockets and is willing to shell out money it takes for a truly astounding array of resources.)

ADS Word of the Year for 2019

4 January 2020

The American Dialect Society has held its annual conference over the past few days in New Orleans, and it has voted on its 2019 Word of the Year and its choice for Word of the Decade for the past ten years. The ADS is a professional group of linguists, lexicographers, and other language scholars, and they have been choosing a Word of the Year since 1990. They use a broad definition of word that encompasses any lexical item and includes phrases, abbreviations, emojis, and the like. While the group is scholarly, the WOTY selection is mostly for fun. The choice reflects the views of scholars but is not a scholarly endeavor. I have, upon occasion in the past, participated in the ADS WOTY selection, but I did not do so this year. See the winners and definitions of each nominee here.

So, the ADS’s choice for 2019 Word of the Year is:

(my) pronouns. The choice probably requires some explanation. It is increasingly common at professional gatherings for people, as they introduce themselves or write out their name tags, to include the pronouns they use to identify themselves, such as he/him/hisshe/her/hers, or they/them/theirs. The reason for this is to be inclusive of people who do not conform to the traditional gender binary, and all are encouraged to include their pronouns so that those who are queer or non-binary are not singled out. Other nominees were ok boomercancel, and Karen.

The choice for Word of the Decade follows the same theme; it is the use of they as a gender-neutral, singular pronoun. The runner-up was meme. Other nominees were the hashtag #BlackLivesMatterclimateemoji#MeTooopioid crisisselfie, and woke.

The Political Word of the Year was quid pro quo, with the hashtag #IMPOTUS, a reference to Donald Trump as the IMpeached President Of The United States, as runner-up. The other two nominees in the category were squad and Trumpschmerz, referring to fatigue and suffering over the continual political debates.

The choice for Most Useful/Most Likely to Succeed was a surprise to me. It was ok boomer in an overwhelming vote. It’s surprising because the phrase had run its course by early December and is now only used by those who are out of touch with what’s trendy. The other nominees were plant-based, to my mind clearly the best choice for this category, stan, and zoomer.

Now we get into a few categories where I don’t recognize any of the words that were nominated. (They nominees make me feel old. Maybe I need to spend more time on TikTok.) The Slang/Informal WOTY was and I oop—. The other nominees were hot girl summer and zaddy. The Most Creative was nobody:, with the other nominees being (X)-curiousgerrymeandering, and sksksk.

The Euphemism of the Year was people of means, with a runner-up in the U.S. Department of Energy’s attempt to coin freedom gas/molecules of freedom as a name for natural gas. Other nominees were Heckboy and self-partnered.

The Digital WOTY was the word-emoji combination of im🍑 for impeach, with the runner-up being VSCO girl. The other nominee in this category was the 📠 fax emoji used for facts.