0.423 men
0.381 hall
0.352 battle
0.339 war
0.322 folk
0.322 lord
0.297 king
0.289 life
0.285 gold
0.268 sword

The most frequently used words and their frequencies (the content word vectors) suggest that the two translators may have interpreted the original very differently. The function word spectra (a representation of all the function words in a text) imply a larger difference still – “…no sacred clarity”, as Headley’s puts it. She explains, in her prologue, that the text produced by the translator is the result of “study, interpretation, and poetic leaps of faith”, and all translations are different. “That is part of the glory”. (Introduction, Beowulf, A NEW TRANSLATION, Maria Dahvana Headley)

William Morris’s translation is particularly notable yet for another reason (emphasis – Quotations):

Published in 1895, just one year before his death, Morris’s version of Beowulf was based on a prose translation by a young Cambridge University scholar in Anglo-Saxon, A.J. Wyatt. But Morris reinterpreted this translation into verse format and favoured using deliberately archaic diction that often mirrored the original, perhaps attempting to evoke the strange ancient setting of the original.

…

The edition is an example of Morris’s very distinct approach to publishing, which reflected his reverence for traditional materials and craftsmanship as a way of fighting back against the forces of industrialisation and mass production. Its hand-made paper was made of linen rags and bound with vellum. He commissioned a new font for his edition of Beowulf called Troy, which was used in conjunction with another font called Chaucer. The ink, specially commissioned from a German manufacturer, was so thick on the page that the workers at the Kelmscott Press threatened to strike in protest.

…

Morris’ Beowulf was also regarded by many critics as an unsuccessful translation due to its arcane and sometimes obscure language.

William Morris’s Beowulf, Cambridge University Library

Explore the source texts, the content word vectors and the function word spectra for the translations of Beowulf (Morris and Gummere) – or any other literary work in our library – (select the works of interest in the Books tab and set the Words tab to frequency; read up on the content word vectors and function word spectra here).

“There are many translations out there, enough that you could read one a day for months and not repeat.”

Headley tells us that there are so many translations of Beowulf out there that one “could read one a day” for endless days and “not repeat.” This body of translation work is an astoundingly varied collection of “interpretations and styles”; each translator embraces a different view on how to relay in today’s English notions that are possibly “inexpressible in it”. (Introduction, Beowulf, A NEW TRANSLATION, Maria Dahvana Headley)

Among the many translations is one by J. R. R. Tolkien. (His 1936 article Beowulf: The Monsters and the Critics is often seen as a major work of scholarship on the subject.)

Tolkien felt that if you wanted to express the meaning intended by the author as opposed to creating another version of Beowulf, it was important to use a style of language that was “literary” and “traditional” and not because it was an old poem but because its language was “archaic and artificial” already when the poem was created. Headley disagrees. Opinions on what may be construed as a “literary” and “traditional” language style depend on who the reader or the listener is. Nevertheless, the complex and frequent wordplay of the Old English original must be accommodated in any translation. (Introduction, Beowulf, A NEW TRANSLATION, Maria Dahvana Headley)

We recommend that you read Headley’s Introduction, or prologue, in full (and her translation, of course). Her first-hand insight into translation work, combined with her wisdom of an experienced and skilful writer and scholar, provides a richly-textured framework that will be of great help to anyone who wishes to orientate himself or herself in the world of Beowulf, with its multitude of translations and its astounding relevance to our times.

Other Interesting Resources:

The New Yorker on Tolkien’s translation, completed in 1926, but published only posthumously in 2014.

Hetta Howes, the author of the TLS review, discusses Headley’s and Hamer’s translations on this podcast.

V&A on some aspects of Morris’s artistic work:

Despite the enthusiasm of artistic and aristocratic circles, Morris’s papers were never universally admired as decorations for the ordinary home. Writing in the Journal of Decorative Arts in 1892, a commentator said that Morris’s “…patterns are palatial in scale, and whilst their colouring is very beautiful and soft, the magnitude of the designs exclude them from ordinary work”. Certainly many of Morris’s later patterns – notably ‘Acanthus’ and ‘St James’s’ – are on a grand scale. He felt that his larger patterns worked well in smaller rooms, but this went against the prevailing view of Victorian tastemakers, including Oscar Wilde, who apparently disliked Morris’s work. Victorian architect Richard Norman Shaw also disapproved of Morris’s delight in ‘glaring wallpapers’, saying that “A wallpaper should be a background pure and simple”.

William Morris and Wall Paper Design, V&A

More on Headley’s work:

And if you'd like more info, here is the most fabulous BEOWULF review, from the @NewYorker and the brilliant @ruth_franklin. It came out yesterday online, in the mag issue 8/31! I cried and cried just as Grendel's mother does in this pic – but for joy. https://t.co/BfNXViOP4d

— Maria Dahvana Headley (@MARIADAHVANA) August 25, 2020