Comparing translations of Mabinogion passages that mention Blodeuwedd (Blodewed / Blodeuedd)

What you want to compare

When scholars or general readers look at passages about Blodeuwedd (also spelled Blodeuwedd, Blodeued, Blodewed in older editions) there are a handful of key scenes translators repeatedly treat in noticeably different ways. If you focus on these moments you can quickly see major translation choices and their consequences for interpretation:

• The creation/formation scene (the makers fashion a woman from flowers)
• The naming/etymology (how the name is explained — “flower face” / “flower‑formed”)
• The adultery/conspiracy episode (Blodeuwedd’s affair with Gronw, plotting to kill Lleu)
• The attempted murder of Lleu (the siege/strange conditions for his death)
• The punishment/transformation (turned into an owl and what that signifies)

Which translators are usually compared

Three commonly cited English translations are useful reference points:

• Lady Charlotte Guest (19th century): Victorian literary translation, freely rendered, poetic diction.
• Jeffrey Gantz (Penguin Classics, 1970s): Modern, readable prose; often streamlines medieval syntax for narrative flow.
• Sioned Davies (Oxford World’s Classics, 2007): More literal, philologically informed, with notes and glosses that preserve some of the original rhythm and ambiguities.

General differences you will notice

• Spelling of the name. Older editions/Guest sometimes anglicize or vary spellings (Blodeuedd, Blodeued, Blodewed). Modern scholarly translations standardize as "Blodeuwedd." Spelling choices signal editorial stance (Victorian vs Welsh orthography).
• Literal vs. literary diction. Guest often favors elegant, Victorian phrasing that reads like a romantic tale. Gantz aims for clear, contemporary English. Davies tends to follow Middle Welsh word order and keep ambiguous or culturally specific words, with explanatory notes.
• Agency and tone toward Blodeuwedd. Some translations foreground her as treacherous and culpable (sharpened verbs, morally colored adjectives). Others emphasize her created nature and constraint — blurring guilt and victimhood (softer verbs, diagnostic notes about her being ‘made’ rather than born).
• Rendering of the supernatural / legal details. The conditions under which Lleu can be killed are described with formulaic, clause‑heavy wording in Middle Welsh. Translators differ in how literal they stay: literal renderings preserve the oddity and ritual logic; freer versions smooth it into conventional narrative logic.
• Imagery and metaphor. The floral language in the creation scene (names of flowers, adjectives like "flower‑faced") is sometimes translated into evocative English imagery, sometimes into very literal glosses of plant names (which can change the scene’s sensory effect).

How those differences look in the main passages (illustrative paraphrase)

Below I summarize characteristic renderings. These are paraphrases of actual translation tendencies rather than verbatim quotations.

1) Creation of Blodeuwedd

• Guest (Victorian, literary): Presents the scene as a small mythic drama — the craftsmen assemble a woman "fair as any flower," with lush, elevated language that highlights beauty and wonder.
• Gantz (modern prose): Describes the craftsmen making a woman "out of blossoms and flowers," succinctly presenting the act as a magical making but with less rhetorical flourish.
• Davies (literal + notes): Keeps more of the original phrasing ("they made a woman of flowers"), preserves specific plant names where the manuscript does, and notes the technical term used for creation; she leaves some syntactic oddities intact so readers sense the medieval texture.

2) Naming / etymology

• Guest: Gives a simple explanatory gloss — the name means something like "flower‑face" or "flower‑faced." The explanation is folded into the narrative elegantly.
• Gantz: States the meaning plainly ("her name means 'flower‑face'"), sometimes adding a short note about the Welsh roots.
• Davies: Presents the original compound (blodau/blod— + uwedd) and explains the morphemes in a footnote, sometimes pointing out alternative readings and the implications for how the medieval audience might hear the name.

3) The affair and conspiracy

• Guest: Often paints Blodeuwedd as willful and culpable, using morally charged adjectives and dramatic phrasing for the clandestine meetings.
• Gantz: Tends to render the scenes plainly, letting the actions stand without additional moral commentary; the affair is reported almost like news, which can feel more neutral or modern.
• Davies: Preserves ambiguous phrasing in the original about who initiates what; her notes flag places where the manuscript is syntactically unclear, which allows readers to entertain readings where Blodeuwedd is acting under pressure or with deliberation.

4) The attempt on Lleu’s life

• Guest: Emphasizes the strangeness and treachery; her phrasing can make the ritual conditions sound like gothic contrivance.
• Gantz: Focuses on clarity — he explains the extraordinary conditions (the specific, bizarre manner in which Lleu can be killed) directly so modern readers follow the scene easily.
• Davies: Tends to preserve the clause structure that lists conditions, which can make the passage feel more ritualistic and law‑like; her apparatus points out idioms or legal phrases in the Welsh that are hard to render precisely in English.

5) Transformation into an owl

• Guest: Uses evocative language for the transformation and sometimes moralizes the punishment (owl as emblem of shame or exile).
• Gantz: States the metamorphosis plainly: she is turned into an owl — the translator often leaves the interpretive work to the reader rather than inserting motive.
• Davies: Gives a literal translation and a note on the cultural resonance of owls in medieval Welsh literature (e.g., nocturnal/outsider associations) and discusses manuscript variants of the description.

Why these differences matter for interpretation

• If a translator emphasizes Blodeuwedd’s beauty and agency, readers are more likely to read her as an active adulteress and traitor.
• If translation highlights her being "made" from flowers and glosses ambiguous clauses conservatively, the text invites a reading that sees her as in part a constructed being — possibly less morally responsible and more a tragic figure constrained by magic and gendered roles crafted by male magicians.
• Rendering of the ritual language and conditional phrasing affects how "legal" or "magical" the attempted murder looks: a literal translation preserves the myth’s odd logic and ritual specificity; a freer translation may recast it as straightforward treachery.

Practical reading tips

1. Read two versions side by side — one older/literary (Guest) and one modern/scholarly (Davies or Gantz). The contrast quickly reveals what the translator smoothed or emphasized.
2. Pay attention to small words: verbs of making (gwneud), words that specify instrument or intent, and the structure of conditional clauses — these carry the legal and magical logic of the tale.
3. Consult translators’ notes/introductions. Modern scholarly editions will flag ambiguous or damaged manuscript readings and suggest alternate interpretations.

Which translation should you use?

• For literary enjoyment and the historic flavor of 19th‑century reception: Lady Charlotte Guest.
• For a readable, contemporary narrative: Jeffrey Gantz.
• For close study, linguistic nuance, and notes on variant readings: Sioned Davies (or another modern academic edition).

Would you like a side‑by‑side excerpt?

I can provide a side‑by‑side comparison of specific lines if you tell me which edition(s) you have in mind (Guest, Gantz, Davies, another translator), or I can quote public‑domain passages from Guest for direct comparison. Tell me which passage to compare (creation, naming, conspiracy, murder scene, or transformation) and which translations you want quoted and I’ll prepare the parallel text with commentary.