The author of this scholarly article seeks to describe the origin of the modern edition of the Beowulf manuscript by examining the work of the scribes and editors of that text. He does so by arguing that the modern editions of the Beowulf text are based on the belief that the text is affected by an assumption of an early dating and that this assumption of an early dating is based on changes the original editors of the modern text made. To do this he begins by describing the Nowell Codex, currently housed in the British museum which is the basis for all modern interpretations of the Beowulf story. This manuscript is in poor condition because it was badly damaged in 1731 when the library which housed it, Ashburnham House, caught fire. A century passed before the document was covered in transparent strips and mounted in heavy paper frames, which still hold the document to this day. In the 18th Century a copy of the text was made by Grimus Jonsson Thorkelin who the author notes is the first modern man to study the document and the first to publish it. However, instead of remaining entirely true to the original document Thorkelin made editorial changes during his transcribing. His edition of the work was published in 1815 and has become a source for translators ever since. The most important point of the translation, and the basis of most of Aaji’s argument, is that Thorkelin inserted an incorrect word in his translation and that this has been generally accepted by later editors and translators. The word, wundini (wound), a eighth century word, was inserted by Torkelin for an word that was made illegible by damage to the original text. The author of this article claims that this word is the basis for the modern notion that the Beowulf text dates back to the eighth century. Instead, the author claims that the word wundun, a 10th or 11th century word would be more appropriate in this instance. He defends this claim by pointing out that the word wundun is repeated some 32 times in the rest of the text. The case is strengthened by the writer pointing out that the later work of Kemble, Wyatt, and Thorpe all reference Torkelin’s work and his choice to use wundini. While the author does not claim to know the exact year the story of Beowulf dates to, he does claim that the poem may very well be a creation of the 11th Century and discounts the widely held belief that the story dates back hundreds of years in oral tradition before being written down in the surviving codex between 975 and 1025 AD.
Since the author presents compelling evidence and clearly presents a sizable knowledge of the facts, his conclusions seem valid. Aaij cites a number of sources to develop his argument against an early origin of the Beowulf story. This add a great deal of strength to his argument. More importantly his argument seems logical to readers. He illustrates how the translation of one word has influenced the modern translators of Beowulf. He also points out the poor shape the original manuscript is in and then argues that this inevitably leads translators to become editors. Therefore, it makes sense that the changes made by the first editor would affect all later translators.
Bibliography
Aaji, Michel. “Editing Beowulf.” Maþeliende. Volume V Number 1 Fall 1997. 20 Nov. 2002 .

-Page 2-