My Beowulf translation group has just passed the famous flyting scene between our hero & Unferth, and in checking and re-checking my translation and performing it in front of others I noticed something intriguing: the use of the subjunctive mood in the notorious “brother-killer” accusation. Here is the text (per Klaeber 4):

                                 … Breca næfre git
æt heaðolace, ne gehwæþer incer,
swa deorlice   dæd gefremede
fagum sweordum   —no ic þæs [fela] gylpe—
þeah ðu þinum broðrum   to banan wurde,
heafodmægum;   þæs þu in helle scealt
werhðo dreogan,   þeah þin wit duge. (ll. 583b-89)

Here is the translation according to Liuzza:

Breca has never — nor you either —
done a deed so bold and daring
with his decorated blade — I would never boast of it! —
though you became your brothers’ killer,
your next of kin; for that you needs must suffer
punishment in hell, no matter how clever you are.

And according to Chickering:

Never in the din   and play of battle
did Breca or you   show such courage
with shining blades   —not to boast about it—
though you were a man-slayer,   killed your brothers,
closest kinsmen,   for which you must suffer
damnation in hell,   clever though you are.

 Now, we should expect the subjunctive to be used in a clause beginning with þeah (although, though, even though) as it is with wurde (weorþan) and duge (dugan), but I have been wondering if that subjunctive verb must always then be translated as an indicative, the force of that uncertainty or potential taken over by the sense of “though.” To maintain the subjunctive sense in both clauses changes the entire meaning of Beowulf’s accusation of kin-slaying, which he could have only heard rumors about at best. Perhaps it is this uncertainty which allows the flyting to remain polite and within the bounds of the competition.

Here is my revised translation:

                              … Neither Brecca or you
ever performed much of note in the dance of battle,
with the splattered sword—not to boast much of it—
though you might have been a killer of your brothers,
your own close kin, and for that you ought to suffer
retribution in the hall, even though your wit might avail you. (ll. 574-89)

Note also the slightly different take on “scealt” as “ought to” rather than the more forceful “must” — also wielding a kind of potential sense that matches the subjunctive verb of BW’s accusation. [Also, as my colleague Rich Epstein reminds me, the “ought to” contains a sense of moral indignation and obligation missing from “must,” which conveys just constraint. If it’s “ought to” then BW is chiding both Unferth and the Danes here.]

Also, I have taken to heart the note by Fulk et al. on “helle” in line 589, suggesting some uncertainty about this no-longer-extant reading (based on the Thorkelin transcript). It seems that the Thorkelin scribe sometimes confuses -e- with -ea- and therefore there is the possibility that this might read “healle” rather than the “helle” it has always been assumed to be. Klaeber 4 perserves an unbracketed “helle”, possibly out of an idea that the reading maintains a Christian sense that the editors are vested in maintaining. But what if we went with the possible (& feasible) reading that does not require the wholesale importation of a value system which may or may not be consistently present in the text? (Mitchell & Robinson also adopt this reading in their edition.)

Re-engaging these possibilities & slants of meaning provides a large justification for my project of re-translating the already-well-translated Beowulf. We have to question both habit and critical practice, out of a sense of duty to the poem and its meaning both as an Old English document and a poem that has meaning for use as modern readers.