3. Published commentary (and related lectures)
• »He [scil. J.R.R. Tolkien] did indeed explicitly intend that the series of lectures on Beowulf which I have used in this book should be a ›textual commentary‹, closely concernced with verbal detail. In practice however he found this restriction confining: he was very often led from the discussion of a word or phrase to more far-reaching exposition of the characteristics of the Old English poet, his thought and his style and his purpose; and in the course of the lectures there are many short but illuminating ›essays‹, arising from specific points in the text. As he wrote, ›I try to do it, yet it is not really possible or satisfactory, to separate one’s commentary into ›legendary content‹ and ›text‹.‹« (Tolkien 2016, viii)
• »I [scil. Christopher Tolkien] have included a number of notes from the lectures on very minor points in the text that illustrate how from a small grammatical or etymological detail he [scil. J.R.R. Tolkien] would derive larger conclusions;« (Tolkien 2016, xii)
• »This inconsistency between the translation and commentary is emblematic of the problems Christopher Tolkien faced when attempting to use the latter as critical notes for the translation. Quite often particular interpretations for which Tolkien argues in the commentary are not incorporated into the translation, which, as noted earlier, is in content kind of a lowest common denominator of what would be accepted by Beowulf scholars.« (Drout 2015, 158)
• »The same cannot be said, however, for his interpretation of the history, composition, and sources of the poem, which is novel and idiosyncratic. Unfortunately, Tolkien’s view is never presented as a single sustained argument but is instead distributed throughout the separate notes of the commentary.« (Drout 2015, 159)
• »Tolkien is so confident about his understanding of Beowulf that he is willing to invert completely the logic of several manuscript readings in order to make the text consistent with his larger-scale interpretation of the poem. Such confidence is not unearned. Some of Tolkien’s interpretations of individual scenes and passages are so good, so rich, complex, and detailed, that I find myself worrying that he has improved upon rather than merely explicated the text, that in his interpretation he has made Beowulf better than it really is by inferring more detail than the poet provides.« (Drout 2015, 162f.)
Bibliography
Tolkien, J.R.R.: Beowulf. A Translation and Commentary together with Sellic Spell [2014], edited by Christopher Tolkien, HarperCollins: London 2016 [978-0-00-759009-4].
Drout, Michael D.C.: Review of »Beowulf: A Translation and Commentary together with Sellic Spell by J.R.R. Tolkien (2014)«, in: Tolkien Studies 12 (2015), no. 1, 149–173 [10.1353/tks.2015.0014].
3. Published Commentary. Some notes on its nature and usage as well as Tolkien’s mode of working in this regard
(cf. Tolkien: Beowulf (2016), vii–xiii.131–135; Drout 2015, 150f.157–166)
»J.R.R. Tolkien was the greatest philologist of his time, his like is not in the world today, and Beowulf was his particular object of study. To read his thoughts about the poem, even if these are at times unfinished and or in imperfect form, is a great gift. The field of Beowulf scholarship is therefore in Christopher Tolkien’s debt for editing and publishing these materials and for presenting them in such a clear, logical, and physically handsome form. It is difficult to imagine any other arrangement of text, or any different set of editing practices, that would make Tolkien’s work on Beowulf more accessible to multiple audiences. […] Some readers may be disappointed that, with the exception of the parallel between Unferth and Wormtongue and Tolkien’s interest in the word gríma, the volume does not provide us with many previously unnoted links between Beowulf and The Hobbit, The Lord of the Rings, and The Silmarillion. But the lack of direct borrowings from the translation should not obscure the deep interconnection between Tolkien’s understanding of Beowulf and his creation of his literary works.« (Drout 2015, 169)
4. Drout’s Critical Conclusion