the literal and narrative approach of the translator, and the degree ofdepth to which the original Old English text is engaged.The representation of Grendel (120-125) in the various translations overtime, of the selected Beowulf passage (115-125), presents a fairly consistentpattern of Grendel represented as more than a simple monster, mirroring andcontrasting the heroic warrior characteristics of Beowulf himself. The originalpoet provides his representation of Grendel in the Old English: Wiht unhaelo, /grim ond graedig, gearo sona waes, / reoc ond repe, (120-22). Often whentransferring this into Modern English, the translator will represent Grendel simplyas the monster, thereby denying Grendels importance as a character, warrior,and contrast as anti-hero to the hero, Beowulf. By denying or misstating theimportance of Grendel, such a translator would be lessening the accomplishmentof the hero, Beowulf, and ultimately diminishing the greatness of the epic. GavinBones translation is the only one of those selected that actually representsGrendel in this manner. The 1943 translation states Grendel as The badcreature... Cruel and hungry,... is away happy... With his fill of meat (D.120-125). The impression provided by this translation of Grendel is not one of afierce and mighty opponent for a hero to battle, but of a simple bad andhungry animal, comparable to a dingo stealing babies in the night in theOutback. This is not an accurate representation of the depth present in the OldEnglish form and the might of Grendel. Providing variation are the translationsby Francis B. Gummere and Ruth P.M. Lehmann, which sit somewhere in themiddle. They do not present Grendel as a simple beast, but they also leave outheroic characteristics in their translations of the representation of Grendel fromOld English. Francis B. Gummere translates Grendel as Unhallowed wight, /grim and greedy, he grasped betimes, / wrathful, reckless, (C.120-22), while...
