Some Lexical Problems in the Interpretation and Textual Criticism of Beowulf (Verses 414a, 845b, 986a, 1320a, 1375a)
2005; Routledge; Volume: 77; Issue: 2 Linguagem: Inglês
10.1080/00393270500384700
ISSN1651-2308
Autores Tópico(s)Historical, Literary, and Cultural Studies
ResumoClick to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size Notes 1. Jurasinski (2004) Jurasinski, Stefan. 2004. “Beowulf 73: ‘Public Land,’ Germanic Egalitarianism, and Nineteenth‐Century Philology.”. JEGP, 103: 323–40. [Google Scholar], for example, points out how Klaeber's understanding of the term folcscaru (73) depends upon political attitudes held by John M. Kemble and wrongly ascribed to the Anglo‐Saxon period by him. Also enlightening, if less consistently persuasive, are the arguments of Bloomfield (1994 Bloomfield, Josephine. 1994. “Diminished by Kindness: Frederick Klaeber's Rewriting of Wealhtheow.”. JEGP, 93: 183–203. [Google Scholar], 1999 Bloomfield, Josephine. 1999. “Benevolent Authoritarianism in Klaeber's Beowulf: An Editorial Translation of Kingship.”. MLQ, 60: 129–59. [Google Scholar]) in regard to the ways that Klaeber's political and domestic views influence the way he glosses certain items of vocabulary. (Some of these claims are excessive and inaccurate, e.g. in regard to OE milde, which in fact is never securely attested in the sense ‘generous’: cf. Bloomfield 1994 Bloomfield, Josephine. 1994. “Diminished by Kindness: Frederick Klaeber's Rewriting of Wealhtheow.”. JEGP, 93: 183–203. [Google Scholar]: 190–91 n. 26, where it is maintained not only that this is the actual meaning of the word but that this view is supported by the analysis of Green (1965 Green, D. H. 1965. The Carolingian Lord: Semantic Studies on Four Old High German Words, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]: 163–73), when actually Green argues that the meaning ‘generous’ in Old Saxon and Old High German is a secondary development.) 2. Klaeber's analysis is probably correct, but the uncertainties are considerable: see, e.g., Laborde 1923 Laborde, E. D. 1923. “Grendel's Glove and His Immunity from Weapons.”. Modern Language Review, 18: 202–4. [Google Scholar]: 203; Rogers 1984 Rogers, H. L. 1984. “Beowulf, line 804.”. N&Q, n.s. 31: 289–92. [Google Scholar]. 3. A conspicuous example is the noun āglæ-ca, to Klaeber's treatment of which objections have often been raised, e.g. by Robinson (1997 Robinson, Fred C. 1997. “Sigemund's fæh▒e ond fyrena: Beowulf 879a.”. In To Explain the Present: Studies in the Changing English Language in Honour of Matti Rissanen, Edited by: Nevalainen, Terttu and Kahlas‐Tarkka, Leena. 201–8. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique. [Google Scholar]: 205). Another problematic word is nefa: see, most recently, Lowe 1993 Lowe, Kathryn A. 1993. “Never Say nefa Again: Problems of Translation in Old English Charters.”. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen, 94: 27–35. [Google Scholar] and Fischer 2002 Fischer, Andreas. 2002. “Notes on Kinship Terminology in the History of English.”. In Of Dyuersitie & Chaunge of Langage: Essays Presented to Manfred Görlach, Edited by: Lenz, Katja and Möhlig, Ruth. 115–28. Heidelberg: Winter. Anglistische Forschungen 308. [Google Scholar]: 124–6. Robinson (1985 Robinson, Fred C. 1985. Beowulf and the Appositive Style, Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press. [Google Scholar]: 14–18 et passim) offers a fine discussion of the ambiguities inherent in compounds, with a critique of some of Klaeber's practices. 4. See, e.g., Andrew 1940 Andrew, S. O. 1940. Syntax and Style in Old English, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar], 1948 Andrew, S. O. 1948. Postscript on Beowulf, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]; Mitchell 1985 Mitchell, Bruce. 1985. Old English Syntax. 2 vols, Oxford: Clarendon. [Crossref] , [Google Scholar]: §§ 2444–9, 2536–60. 5. The revised edition, under the editorship of Robert E. Bjork, John D. Niles, and the present author, will be published by Houghton Mifflin, and at the present writing (August, 2005) it is expected to appear in 2006. The changes proposed here are “contemplated” because they are contingent upon decisions yet to be made by the editors. 6. The poem is cited from the edition of Klaeber (1950a) Klaeber, Fr. ed. 1950a. Beowulf and the Fight at Finnsburg. 3rd ed. with 1st and 2nd supplements, Boston: Heath. [Google Scholar]. All other Old English verse is cited from Krapp and Dobbie 1931–53 Krapp, George Philip. 1931–53. The Anglo‐Saxon Poetic Records. 6 vols, Edited by: Van Kirk Dobbie, Elliott. New York: Columbia University Press. [Google Scholar], though, for consistency's sake, macrons have been added to indicate the quantities of vowels and diphthongs. 7. Klaeber's sense that the plain meaning is “after the sun disappears from the firmament” is contested by Caldwell 1973 Caldwell, Robert A. 1973. “Beowulf vv. 413b–414.”. Medium Ævum, 42: 131–2. [Google Scholar], by reference to astronomical twilight. This does not clear up the problem of the meaning of hādor. 8. So von Schaubert (1961–63 Schaubert, Else von, ed. 1961–63. Heyne‐Schückings Beowulf. 17th ed. (Vols. 2–3) and 18th ed. (Vol. 1), Paderborn: Schöningh. [15th ed. (her first) 1940.] [Google Scholar]), Lehnert (1967) Lehnert, Martin, ed. 1967. Beowulf: Eine Auswahl, mit Einführung. 4th ed, Berlin: de Gruyter. [1st ed. 1939.] [Google Scholar], Wrenn (1973) Wrenn, C. L. ed. 1973. Beowulf, with the Finnesburg Fragment. 3rd ed. rev. by W. F. Bolton, London: Macmillan. [1st ed. 1953.] [Google Scholar], and Nickel et al. (1976–82 Nickel, Gerhardeds. 1976–82. Beowulf und die kleineren Denkmäler der altenglischen Heldensage Waldere und Finnsburg. 3 vols, Heidelberg: Winter. [Google Scholar]). 9. Pope (1966 Pope, John C. 1966. The Rhythm of Beowulf. Rev. ed, New Haven: Yale University Press. [1st ed. 1942.] [Google Scholar]: 323) earlier found the verse metrically objectionable with hādor, in an analysis that shows he also rejected the possibility of anacrusis. 10. So, e.g., Krause 1971 Krause, Wolfgang. 1971. Die Sprache der urnordischen Runeninschriften, Heidelberg: Winter. [Google Scholar]: § 98. Antonsen (1975 Antonsen, Elmer. 1975. A Concise Grammar of the Older Runic Inscriptions, Tübingen: Niemeyer. [Google Scholar]: 86–7) would reconstruct a PIE stem *(s)k∂ytro‐, but this is implausible, since r and r are not confused in the older runic inscriptions; r can derive only from PIE s. 11. Compare the earlier translation of Thorkelín in the editio princeps: ‘Postqvam Hesperi jubar / Sub coeli arcu / Occultum fiebat’ (1815 Thorkelín, Grímur Jónsson. 1815. De Danorum rebus gestis secul. III & IV. Poëma danicum dialecto anglosaxonica, Copenhagen: T. E. Rangel. [Google Scholar]: 33). 12. For these and other cognates, see Holthausen 1974 Holthausen, F., ed. 1974. Altenglisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. 3rd (unrev.) ed, Heidelberg: Winter. [Google Scholar]: 153. The interchange of a and ea in this word is due to facultative application of back mutation in verse. We find similar alternation in this poem in regard to (e)atol, h(e)afola, and others: see Klaeber 1950a Klaeber, Fr. ed. 1950a. Beowulf and the Fight at Finnsburg. 3rd ed. with 1st and 2nd supplements, Boston: Heath. [Google Scholar]: lxxviii, § 12.1. 13. See also Fjalldal 1998 Fjalldal, Magnús. 1998. The Long Arm of Coincidence: The Frustrated Connection between ‘Beowulf’ and ‘Grettis saga’, Toronto: University of Toronto Press. [Google Scholar]: 72–4. Frank (1986 Frank, Roberta. 1986. “‘Mere’ and ‘Sund’: Two Sea‐Changes in Beowulf.”. In Modes of Interpretation in Old English Literature: Essays in Honour of Stanley B. Greenfield, Edited by: Brown, P. R, Crampton, G. R and Robinson, F. C. 153–72. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. [Google Scholar]: 154–8, with an excellent synopsis of the scholarship) argues that the poet is purposely ambiguous. 14. This argument, which originated with Robinson (1974 Robinson, Fred C. 1974. “Elements of the Marvellous in the Characterization of Beowulf.”. In Old English Studies in Honour of John C. Pope, Edited by: Burlin, R. B and Irving, Jr., E. B. 119–37. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. [Google Scholar]: 126–7) and has been elaborated by several others, is examined in Fulk 2005 Fulk, R. D. 2005. “Afloat in Semantic Space: Old English sund and the Nature of Beowulf's Exploit with Breca.”. JEGP, 104(2005): 457–74. [Google Scholar], where counterarguments are offered. 15. In addition to those already mentioned, there is Grundtvig's stedig (1861) Grundtvig, N. F. S., ed. 1861. Beowulfes beorh, eller Bjovulfs‐drapen, det old‐angelske heltedigt, Copenhagen: Schönberg. [Google Scholar], Sedgefield's stı¯▒‐ (edd. 1–2) and his studu‐ (ed. 3). 16. As urged by Clarke 1934 Clarke, Martin D. E. 1934. “Beowulfiana.”. Modern Language Review, 29: 320–1. [Google Scholar]. Klaeber (1950b Klaeber, Fr. ed. 1950b. “Randglossen zur Texterklärung des Beowulf.”. Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur, 72: 120–6. [Google Scholar]: 120) objects that stede is never found in the plural in verse (“ein kaum irgendwie entscheidender Einwand!” in the opinion of von Schaubert). Yet there is no obvious reason why the plural should be disallowed in poetry, and in fact the plural is found six times in verse when ‐stede is compounded (with burg‐, wong‐, wı¯c‐). At all events, if the interpretation of the passage offered here is acceptable, the plural is to be expected in this context. 17. So first Kemble; most recently Chambers, Sedgefield, von Schaubert, and Wrenn; also Toller 1921 Toller, Northcote T. 1921. An Anglo‐Saxon Dictionary Based on the Manuscript Collections of the Late Joseph Bosworth: Supplement, London: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar], s.v. 18. This judgment is based on the information given in Grein 1912 Grein, C. W. M., ed. 1912. Sprachschatz der angelsächsischen Dichter. 2nd ed. rev. by J. J. Köhler, Heidelberg: Winter. [Google Scholar], s.v. nyd. 19. Vaf░rú▒nismál 8, cited from the edition of Neckel (1983) Neckel, Gustav, ed. 1983. Edda: Die Lieder des Codex regius nebst verwandten Denkmälern. 5th ed. rev. by Hans Kuhn, Heidelberg: Winter. [Google Scholar], but here normalized; so also the next, from Hávamál. There is a similar instance in Fjǫlsvinnsmál 3 (in the 2nd ed. [1927] of Neckel): Svipdagr complains that the giant Fjǫlsviðr does not offer lǫ▒ to the weary wayfarer. 20. So most editors, including Hunt (1885) Hunt, Theodore W., ed. 1885. Cædmon's Exodus and Daniel, Boston: Ginn. [Google Scholar], Blackburn (1907) Blackburn, F. A., ed. 1907. Exodus and Daniel, Boston: Heath. [Google Scholar], Krapp (in Krapp and Dobbie 1931–53 Krapp, George Philip. 1931–53. The Anglo‐Saxon Poetic Records. 6 vols, Edited by: Van Kirk Dobbie, Elliott. New York: Columbia University Press. [Google Scholar]: 1.199), Irving (1953) Irving, E. B., Jr., ed. 1953. The Old English Exodus, New Haven: Yale University Press. [Google Scholar] and Tolkien (1981) Tolkien, J. R. R., ed. 1981. The Old English Exodus, Oxford: Clarendon. [Google Scholar]. Only Lucas (1994) Lucas, Peter J., ed. 1994. Exodus. 2nd ed, Exeter: University of Exeter Press. [Google Scholar] emends to ▒rysmyde. 21. Aside from Sedgefield and Wrenn themselves, the only editors to have accepted the emendation are Magoun (1966) Magoun, Francis Peabody, ed. 1966. Béowulf and Judith. Rev. ed. by J. B. Bessinger, Jr, Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press. [1st ed. 1959.] [Google Scholar] and Swanton (1997) Swanton, Michael, ed. 1997. Beowulf, Manchester: Manchester University Press. Rev. ed. [Google Scholar]. That initial d‐ is for ▒‐ is a possibility also credited by Healey et al. 2003 Healey, Antonette diPaolo eds. 2003. The Dictionary of Old English. Fascicle F and Fascicles A–E (with revisions). CD‐ROM Version 1.0, Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies. [Google Scholar], s.v. drysmian. 22. This is another reason to doubt the authenticity of MS drysma░, since *drysmian, too, would have to have been transferred from the first class, requiring us to posit not just an otherwise unattested verb but an alternate stem form that is equally unattested. 23. There are examples in lines 68, 286, 300, 470, 567, 1367, 1487, 1923, 1967, 2344, 2520, and 3018. For studies, with many examples from other poems, see Pogatscher 1901 Pogatscher, A. 1901. “Unausgedrücktes Subjekt im Altenglischen.”. Anglia, 23: 261–302. [Google Scholar] and Blockley 1998 Blockley, Mary E. 1998. “Apposition and the Subjects of Verb‐Initial Clauses.”. In Words and Works: Studies in Medieval English Language and Literature in Honour of Fred. C. Robinson, Edited by: Baker, P and Howe, N. 173–86. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. [Google Scholar]. 24. On Klaeber's aims in regard to the American university curriculum, see Damico 1997 Damico, Helen. 1997. “‘My Professor of Anglo‐Saxon was Frederick Klaeber’: Minnesota and Beyond.”. In The Preservation and Transmission of Anglo‐Saxon Culture, Edited by: Szarmach, Paul E and Rosenthal, Joel T. 73–98. Kalamazoo: Medieval Institute, Western Michigan University. [Google Scholar]: 74–6. The author wishes to express warm thanks to John D. Niles and Robert E. Bjork for their generous suggestions regarding these notes, which they read in draft. This essay has benefited enormously from their scrutiny, particularly where they are not in complete agreement with the conclusions offered.
Referência(s)