Seamus Heaney's Beowulf
Seamus Heaney’s Beowulf, written by Bruce Murphy and published in 2003, is a contemporary literary criticism that examines the strengths and weaknesses of Seamus Heaney's translation of Beowulf. Murphy starts his essay by putting Beowulf in context, describing it as an almost musical work that has come to be part of the literary canon. Before even mentioning Heaney's translation, Murphy quotes a nineteenth century translation by Francis Gummere in order to point out weaknesses--a lack of alliteration and compound words characteristic to the original Anglo-Saxon poem as well as a fundamental misunderstanding of how a Germanic epic hero should sound like--that Heaney was able to strengthen in his own translation. From here Murphy transitions
…show more content…
into his praise of Heaney’s work.
Murphy’s first point about Heaney’s work is that it eloquently combines the poem’s “cruel realities” and “fantastic elements” to give the poem its “earthly and unearthly reality.” (1,2) Murphy follows this up by commenting on Heaney’s own introduction.
He discusses the idea that Beowulf is an “escape” from the cultural and political history that surrounds the poem-one in which English is the language of the oppressors and Irish is the language of the oppressed. (2) Murphy goes on to assert that Heaney is a qualified translator as someone who, like the Beowulf poet, lived in England and wrote stories in Anglo-Saxon using German myths for context.
Murphy then goes into great detail praising Heaney’s linguistic style in specific areas of the poem. He marvels at how impressive Heaney’s work is at maintaining the “alliterative music” of the original Beowulf poem while at the same time preserving an accurate and specific translation. (2) Murphy points out specific instances of Heaney’s skill in working flexibly with difficult words and employing appropriate and effective translations of maritime language.
However, Murphy then takes the opportunity to acknowledge certain instances of weakness in Heaney’s translation when he was being vague and inconsistent. He also points out instances when Heaney is “over-ingenious” in his translation and detracts from the original meaning. (4)
Murphy transitions back into praising Heaney, commending him for the way he presents dialogue that reveals
what goes on in the minds of the characters.
He then concludes by contending that Heaney as a risk-taker who has produced “the best translation of the poem as a poem that has yet to be made.” (5)
into his praise of Heaney’s work.
Murphy’s first point about Heaney’s work is that it eloquently combines the poem’s “cruel realities” and “fantastic elements” to give the poem its “earthly and unearthly reality.” (1,2) Murphy follows this up by commenting on Heaney’s own introduction.
He discusses the idea that Beowulf is an “escape” from the cultural and political history that surrounds the poem-one in which English is the language of the oppressors and Irish is the language of the oppressed. (2) Murphy goes on to assert that Heaney is a qualified translator as someone who, like the Beowulf poet, lived in England and wrote stories in Anglo-Saxon using German myths for context.
Murphy then goes into great detail praising Heaney’s linguistic style in specific areas of the poem. He marvels at how impressive Heaney’s work is at maintaining the “alliterative music” of the original Beowulf poem while at the same time preserving an accurate and specific translation. (2) Murphy points out specific instances of Heaney’s skill in working flexibly with difficult words and employing appropriate and effective translations of maritime language.
However, Murphy then takes the opportunity to acknowledge certain instances of weakness in Heaney’s translation when he was being vague and inconsistent. He also points out instances when Heaney is “over-ingenious” in his translation and detracts from the original meaning. (4)
Murphy transitions back into praising Heaney, commending him for the way he presents dialogue that reveals
what goes on in the minds of the characters.
He then concludes by contending that Heaney as a risk-taker who has produced “the best translation of the poem as a poem that has yet to be made.” (5)