Additionally, the correction of this shows that the scribe is in full control of what is changed. Also, if the scribe likes something in a different way then he can do that. Personally, I think that this unfair that the scribe is able to do this. I understand that it is hard to interpret some words in the original manuscript but with research the story should be put at how the original author intended it to be. Another example of this occurring is with Cain and Cam. The scribe saw multiple instances of the word Cam and assumed that it needed to be translated into being Camp. This translation is wrong because Cain was the correct translation for that. Throughout Neidorf’s criticism, he shows the multiple errors that scribes made and how it changed
…show more content…
She limited the analysis to the first two thirds of the poem. This is because the work of Scribe A shows scribal characteristics of the eleventh century. Damico argues, “The Beowulf-poet imaginatively reconfigured contemporary events and political figures into his fictionalized North Germanic imperial world, creating a type of historical allegory” (Damico 1). This is an interplay between historical reality and the poem’s imaginative present where the two were constructed into having two meanings. This shows that the scriber used events that were happening in the current time to influence his editing in Beowulf. That is why when you read Beowulf you see multiple meanings and it brings a sense of confusion. Personally, when I read Beowulf I saw some things that occurred during the Anglo Saxon time while others seemed to fall into a different time period. Damico believes that some aspects of the story fall into the sixth century and on the eleventh century. However, when these centuries merge together they describe the fall of the Scylding throne. The story is about dynamic succession but in two different time periods. Some would like this combination while others may think it takes away from the original story’s meaning. Damico proposes “That it may very well concern issues of dynastic inheritance that plagued the Scyldings of the eleventh century as well, if Cnut and his sons were so regarded, issues that would bear immediate relevance to the poet and, possibly, to his select audience” (Damico 2). This shows that Damico believes that this helps you understand why it may be hard understanding
She limited the analysis to the first two thirds of the poem. This is because the work of Scribe A shows scribal characteristics of the eleventh century. Damico argues, “The Beowulf-poet imaginatively reconfigured contemporary events and political figures into his fictionalized North Germanic imperial world, creating a type of historical allegory” (Damico 1). This is an interplay between historical reality and the poem’s imaginative present where the two were constructed into having two meanings. This shows that the scriber used events that were happening in the current time to influence his editing in Beowulf. That is why when you read Beowulf you see multiple meanings and it brings a sense of confusion. Personally, when I read Beowulf I saw some things that occurred during the Anglo Saxon time while others seemed to fall into a different time period. Damico believes that some aspects of the story fall into the sixth century and on the eleventh century. However, when these centuries merge together they describe the fall of the Scylding throne. The story is about dynamic succession but in two different time periods. Some would like this combination while others may think it takes away from the original story’s meaning. Damico proposes “That it may very well concern issues of dynastic inheritance that plagued the Scyldings of the eleventh century as well, if Cnut and his sons were so regarded, issues that would bear immediate relevance to the poet and, possibly, to his select audience” (Damico 2). This shows that Damico believes that this helps you understand why it may be hard understanding