I've had 2 separate people recommend the Lombardo translation to me, is it actually good?
two separate people as opposed to....two people who are the same person?
>>7921192
well I mean he's great on double bass pedals but he should never have bothered returning to post-seasons Slayer at all, and it would be great if he worked with Mike Patton again.
>>7921192
Well i mean its not the Chapman translation, so its not the one you're gonna read.
>>7921225
Isn't "two separate people" just a way of saying two unaffiliated people on separate occasions?
Alexander Pope desu
OK FUCK IT WE SETTLE THIS ONCE AND FOR ALL NOW.
/lit/ decide once and for all who is the best translator for Iliad?
-Alexander Pope
-Richmond Lattimore
-Fitzgerald
-Robert Fagles
-Lombardo
Or someone else?
>>7921972
There is no "best" it depends what you are looking for
>>7921972
depends what you want the translation for
>>7921972
Depends on your preferences
>>7921974
>>7921976
>>7921982
one that captures homer's literary genius best and still coherently translates everything as accurately as it can with a gorgeous prose.
>depends on what are you looking for
what do you mean? A translation's job is to translate the original work as accurately as it can while still capturing the style and literary merit no? That is what i'm looking for.
>>7921986
translations don't work that way, and not everything is transable. homeric works aren't in prose btw
>>7921972
Lattimore
>>7921986
go read samples of each and pick which is best for you. or would using your brain to make decisions for yourself be too difficult for you.
>>7921986
>what do you mean?
Some are verse some are prose. Some take very fre liberties and end up dry, others take more to make it more readable. Of the verse translations some are blank verse, some use heroic couplets.
>>7921986
>prose
That aside, read Lattimore or Fitzgerald.
>>7921986
So different translations appeal to different readers for different reasons, and serve different purposes. I've read four different translations of both texts and here's my standard recommendations:
- If you're new to Homer and want a fast moving read without particular attention being paid to replicating Greek forms, get Fagles. It's my favourite modern translation and the one I read most often.
- Lattimore is also readable and accessible, but is more technically accurate and less 'regular english'. It is more academic and is, I think, the standard choice in universities. If you are interested in a more accurate translation, use Lattimore.
- Pope's is very beautiful as an English text, but seems to me to be too laboured and too pretty.
- Chapman's is my favourite older translation. It is rougher and more 'masculine' a translation, but it takes more work to comprehend as an English text. One critic described reading it as something like the effort that goes into translation.
So Fagles/Chapman ftw, I think. I don't know Lombardo or Fitzgerald's translations. Lawrence's Odyssey is a chore (in prose). I haven't bothered with Rieu's either, because why bother when I have Fagles and Chapman?
>>7922057
Where can you even buy Chapman's homer? No bookstore has it and I can only find kindle editions on Amazon.
>>7922152
Wordsworth Editions. Despite the fucked up cover design, it's worth it for the text. I have the earlier edition with pic related.
I found my copy at a thrift store, though abebooks has plenty:
http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?an=homer&kn=chapman&sts=t
>>7921972
There are also advocates of
- Rodney Merrill (who attempts an English hexameter for both Homer and Apollonios, and whose Odyssey is open access at http://www.press.umich.edu/17212/odyssey)
- EV Rieu (prose)
- Martin Hammond (prose)
- AT Murray (prose; Loeb - revised by George Dimock, and William Wyatt)
- Stephen Mitchell (verse, but omits parts of the received text)
>>7921974
This. If you want an English version that qualifies as poetry in its own right, you will probably tend towards Pope or Fitzgerald or Fagles or Ennis Rees, or ... . If you are reading mainly for plot, you will go with Hammond or Murray or Lattimore; Lattimore also if you want a good reflection of comopisitional aspects like repeated epithets and other line or passage formulae.
>>7922367
Worth noting that Wordsworth has changed its Odyssey translation, without changing ISBN. ISBN 1853260258 / 9781853260254 used to be a reprint of TE Lawrence (a. k. a. Shaw); but is now Chapman's Odyssey.
>>7922468
I could also have mentioned Allen Mandelbaum as a verse translation some support.
>>7921972
P O P E
O O
P O P E
E E
>>7921995
i am only about to read the one of the most important works in the greek literature. why should i not be careful about which translation to pick first?
>>7922022
>>7922057
thank you for the detailed answers.
I will pick up lattimore I guess.
any recommendations for pic related?
c.j.hogarth or david magarshack or someone else?
>>7922497
POOP?
>>7922536
>I will pick up lattimore I guess.
Lattimore is not an easy read, but he is, IMHO, one of the best for a balance between sense and form (such that he is often used to teach Homeric technique in translation), and he doesn't commit the tonal infelicities sometimes found in Fagles ("cramp my style" indeed!).
>>7922547
goddamnit. so fagles then? I'm not a lit student. I just want to do this because I'm into philosophy and i;ve been told the iliad is indispensable.
So can a noob enjoy fagle's translation for iliad?
>>7922577
i love you senpai. i always get conflicted and torn between what translation to choose and end up procrastinating actually reading the book. thanks for the help.
>>7922559
No, not Fagles in my opinion. He may have strong credentials as a poet, but I have read passages alone, and alongside the Greek, and find his tone uneven, his translation sometimes inaccurate, and his representation of Homeric technique lacking.
Lattimore is not easy, but also not difficult for somebody capable of university standard reading, and especially not for somebody hoping seriously to read philosophy. He succeeds on the points where I find Fagles less good. If you are after a verse translation, Lattimore will give you the best sense of Homeric content, tone, and technique. And what makes Homer Homer is not just the story (which you could read in summary) or the culture (which prose will give) but also the epic form.
>>7922559
BTW, I wouldn't say the Iliad is indispensible for philosophy. Homer is basic to Greek culture and literature, and influences it widely - sort of the way the Bible, especially the KJB, or Shakespeare, influenced modern Anglophone culture and literature, only more so. Philosophy draws on this too, and in some cases (especially Plato) explicitly pushes against Homeric influence. But you don't need to read Homer in full to grasp Greek philosophy; and your investment of time could probably be better placed elsewhere.
If you do read Homer, it's for his literary qualities, and / or his literary and cultural influence. Any good version will give you some of this, but if you have no Greek, the best approach is to look at a range of translations - perhaps choose one to read in full (I would pick Lattimore, but there are good arguments for others, as mentioned in this thread), and then look at individual books or passages in one or more others.
>>7921773
None of them
Translating poetry is a sin
Fagles for the best balance between clarity and style, Pope for style.
Though really, you should just go ahead and learn greek, it's one of the three essential literary languages.
>>7921986
>gorgeous prose
Oh boy
>>7922736
>Iliad
>prose
m8...
>>7922744
fuck sorry.
God no. I read the first few pages and Achilles sounded like a whiney teenage bitch.
He literally called Agamemnon 'dude' in one passage.
>>7922697
to be fair pope didn't really translate shit
>>7922559
listen to this dude >>7922693
I don't agree with his criticism of Fagles if he is >>7922646. It's fine, and generally used instead of Lattimore because it's written with people who learn English modern poetry in mind. Lattimore replicated the effects of Greek poetry and tries to capture the rise and fall of sounds as they are in Greek instead of preserve the imagery or English sense that Fagles aims for with his translation.
He's right about you not needing it for philosophy. Start with the PreSocratics instead, then on to Attica.
If you just want the story contained in Homer's Iliad, without poetry and memorised lists of millions of boats, Butler's translation moved things about for plot readers and is in prose.
>>7922754
(sorry)
>>7922559
>I just want to do this because I'm into philosophy and i;ve been told the iliad is indispensable
Who by? If you believe everything /lit/ tells you about what you -need- to read, you'll never get around to reading what you -want- to read.
Also, try some translations out, obviously.
>>7921972
A. T. Murray is objectively the best translation you can get.
>>7921972
Only read Mark Hammond and Robert Fagles but much preferred Fagles writing.
It's positively absurd
>Stanley Lombardo
Rage:
Sing, Goddess, Achilles' rage,
Black and murderous, that cost the Greeks
Incalculable pain, pitched countless souls
Of heroes into Hades' dark,
And left their bodies to rot as feasts
For dogs and birds, as Zeus' will was done.
Begin with the clash between Agamemnon--
The Greek warlord--and godlike Achilles.
>Alexander Pope
Achilles' wrath, to Greece the direful spring
Of woes unnumber'd, heavenly goddess, sing!
That wrath which hurl'd to Pluto's gloomy reign
The souls of mighty chiefs untimely slain;
Whose limbs unburied on the naked shore,
Devouring dogs and hungry vultures tore.
Since great Achilles and Atrides strove,
Such was the sovereign doom, and such the will of Jove!
>Robert Fitzgerald
Anger be now your song, immortal one,
Akhilleus’ anger, doomed and ruinous,
that caused the Akhaians loss on bitter loss
and crowded brave souls into the undergloom,
leaving so many dead men — carrion
for dogs and birds; and the will of Zeus was done.
Begin it when the two men first contending
broke with one another —
the Lord Marshal
Agamémnon, Atreus’ son, and Prince Akhilleus. . . .
>Robert Fagles
Rage — Goddess, sing the rage of Peleus’ son Achilles,
murderous, doomed, that cost the Achaeans countless losses,
hurling down to the House of Death so many sturdy souls,
great fighters’ souls, but made their bodies carrion,
feasts for the dogs and birds,
and the will of Zeus was moving toward its end.
Begin, Muse, when the two first broke and clashed,
Agamemnon lord of men and brilliant Achilles. . . .
>Richmond Lattimore
Sing, goddess, the anger of Peleus’ son Achilleus
and its devastation, which put pains thousandfold upon the Achaians,
hurled in their multitudes to the house of Hades strong souls
of heroes, but gave their bodies to be the delicate feasting
of dogs, of all birds, and the will of Zeus was accomplished
since that time when first there stood in division of conflict
Atreus’ son the lord of men and brilliant Achilleus. . . .
>Peter Green
Wrath, goddess, sing of Achilles Peleus's son's
calamitous wrath, which hit the Achaians with countless ills—
many the valiant souls it saw off down to Hades,
souls of heroes, their selves left as carrion for dogs
and all birds of prey, and the plan of Zeus was fulfilled—
from the first moment those two men parted in fury,
Atreus's son, king of men, and the godlike Achilles.
>George Chapman
ACHILLES’ baneful wrath resound, O Goddess, that impos’d
Infinite sorrows on the Greeks, and many brave souls los’d
From breasts heroic; sent them far to that invisible cave
That no light comforts; and their limbs to dogs and vultures gave:
To all which Jove’s will gave effect; from whom first strife begun
Betwixt Atrides, king of men, and Thetis’ godlike son.
>>7921972
Pope is the best for literature. Fitzgerald is the best modern translation. Fagles is good if you want something more casual. Lattimore is a solid Fitzgerald replacement, those two come down to preference.
>>7923029
This is partially why Pope's is the best.
Since i'm a filthy spic, i don't know in which translator is it supposed to be based, but i was looking forward to this in preparation to reading the Odyssey, but 3/5 in and i'm struggling to go on after three goddamn months because of all those biographies and shit.
Also, i knew greek gods were dicks, but i didn't know they played favorites so much to screw around all the time.
>>7923029
>pleb deteced
This is such a meme opinion.
>>7923380
Chapman quite clearly btfo the rest. Not only is it the most enjoyable to read, but it bests captures that Atrides bears blame in the quarrel with Achilles, and best captures the ambiguity of Zeus' involvement: Jove's will 'gives effect'. It's important that theres tension between the human error that causes such suffering and the element of fate.
I love Lombardo
>>7923059
>I don't agree with his criticism of Fagles if he is >>7922646. It's fine, and generally used instead of Lattimore because it's written with people who learn English modern poetry in mind. Lattimore replicated the effects of Greek poetry and tries to capture the rise and fall of sounds as they are in Greek instead of preserve the imagery or English sense that Fagles aims for with his translation.
Yes, I am both >>7922693 and >>7922646
As I said, some very much like and recommend Fagles though I do not particularly, and he has the superior claim as a modern poet (as does Fitzgerald); however, while Fagles is often preferred by those who come at Homer without Greek and / or with a background in English poetry, Lattimore is still preferred by many with Greek and who teach classics in translation (although some prefer Fitzgerald, and some use Lattimore's Iliad but Fitzgerald's Odyssey) precisely because Lattimore is generally extremely faithful to the literal sense of the Greek text. He preserves both sense and imagery, along with some elements of form. Indeed, he is sufficiently faithful that I have seen one professor of classics teach the Greek text of the Odyssey with a personally annotated Lattimore in hand.
Lattimore does not pad or elide, his translation is more or less line for line (and has the same number of lines as the Greek) and quite literal (only Albert Cook's Norton Odyssey, among verse translations I have used, is arguably more so). Most importantly for classics teachers and those wanting to understand Homer's technique, because Lattimore translates literally, he preserves in most cases the repetitions that are an essential and distinctive part of Homer's Greek text (and believed to reflect the poems' origins in oral poetry), but that translators have historically often varied or omitted as being tedious to modern ears attuned to different poetic aesthetics, even for epic. This literal fidelity is also why Lattimore can be harder for modern readers than some other twentieth century translations.
I wouldn't want my non-recommendation of Fagles to be taken for a stronger antipathy than it is. It is just that, in cases where I have used translations alone or closely with the Greek, I have found Fagles less to my personal liking than Lattimore and others. Others, with different priorities and aesthetics, make a strong case for Fagles. I'm just not persuaded, is all.
>>7923794
I should have said: basically, for a sense of Homer, you can trust most of the major published translations. Most people will develop preferences for one or other based on their personal tastes, their own priorities, and what they expect of a translation.
>>7923139
Just for clarity, I presume that's *Martin* Hammond?
>>7922468
All of Stephen mitchells translations are shit
>>7923794
>As I said, some very much like and recommend Fagles though I do not particularly,
Should have said that I was referring here partly to my earlier comment as follows:
>>7922468
>If you want an English version that qualifies as poetry in its own right, you will probably tend towards Pope or Fitzgerald or Fagles or Ennis Rees, or ... . If you are reading mainly for plot, you will go with Hammond or Murray or Lattimore; Lattimore also if you want a good reflection of comopisitional aspects like repeated epithets and other line or passage formulae.
And how the fuck did I spell "compositional" like that?
>>7923794
This guy gets it.
Lattimore had a supernatural aptitude for this stuff.
>>7923794
While I like Lattimore, he doesn't preserve the sense of the text as well as Fagles does in places. Since Fagles is not juggling all the other problems of form and meter, he integrates images and metaphors into the English much more easily; Lattimore you'll see less paraphrase, but, without a knowledge of Greek set phrases and concepts, the original image is lost and carries a different sense in English.
I'm not saying Fagles is better than Lattimore (I prefer Lattimore), but he is much better for anyone coming from only a 20th Century English perspective because he is explicit where Lattimore is subtle.
>>7922468
>If you are reading mainly for plot, you will go with Hammond or Murray or Lattimore
No, you can't beat the old Samuel Butler prose translation if you're reading for plot.
>>7923059
>If you just want the story contained in Homer's Iliad, without poetry and memorised lists of millions of boats, Butler's translation moved things about for plot readers and is in prose.
This.
>>7923826
See, at that point, you might as well read it in a prose translation.
That is, unless the translation is itself a great work of art, as it Pope's version.
>>7923830
In listing Hammond, Murray, and Lattimore, I wasn't trying to be exclusive or exhaustive; just to give some examples of translations that are less appealing to those looking for English poetry (two are prose), and more to those wanting the sense.
>>7923846
whut? even if you're anti imagist to the point of hating Pound, you still need to understand Homer's imagery to read Eliot. Pope's work is his own, not a focus on Homer's imagery.
>>7923826
>While I like Lattimore, he doesn't preserve the sense of the text as well as Fagles does in places. Since Fagles is not juggling all the other problems of form and meter, he integrates images and metaphors into the English much more easily; Lattimore you'll see less paraphrase, but, without a knowledge of Greek set phrases and concepts, the original image is lost and carries a different sense in English.
This, for me, is a strength of Lattimore, rather than a weakness: the reader has to engage with what you term "Greek set phrases and concepts"; rather than trying to get at it via a paraphrase or footnote-in-the-text approach. The strangeness of some aspects of Homer is a valuable thing to be able to see, and one of his attractions for centuries of readers.
This, incidentally, is also why I recommend looking at different versions, especially for passages a Greekless reader wants to study closely: different translators will bring out different aspects of the text, and in combination will provide a better grasp of what's going on.
Metre is one formal area Lattimore is not as strong on. He claims a loosely defined six-beat line (and in this has been widely imitated in subsequent translation of epic), but some critics find it so loose as to be almost non-existent in places, and he himself explicitly eschews any rigid metrical approach. That's because Lattimore's priority is literal sense; whereas those hewing strictly to metrical lines are often forced into padding or compression.
>>7923855
The imagery is preserved in the good prose translations.
>>7923947
the reader however doesn't always engage with the Greek concepts and phrases, and to be realistic, most people who do understand would have a deep enough understanding of the original to not need Lattimore. if you know where he's copying what, and don't need someone to point it out to you, you're probably highly competent in some form of Greek. some of those phrases and concepts will be caught by someone reading Lattimore alone, but even in a university course using the text, they won't hit on all of those subtle imitations. it's impossible without knowing what is being imitated.
it has strengths if people want to continue on with Greek culture because it's a first taste, of which they won't notice most of the work, but it certainly loses a lot of the original meaning to anyone without any understanding of Greeks because of that. Fagles doesn't suffer from that double bind because he tries to maintain the meaning.
this happens with a lot of things in translation: you don't translate "vete a mierda" as "go to shit" because the end audience isn't aware of how swearing works in other cultures.
Lombardo takes this further than Fagles and falls into the other side of the trap: his newly created meaning don't reflect the original concept's contextual cues.
>>7923951
are you just afraid of free verse?
>>7923993
Yes, I agree that Lattimore can be difficult for those with no knowledge of Greek culture; however Homer in any but the most diluted form will be too, because the worldview that inspires and motivates the narrative and the characters is so alien. Homeric poetry is one of the traditional first steps in Greek, and one can see why - good stories, fairly uncomplicated style; but it's always struck me as a poor starting point precisely because it demands so much of the reader (and probably did even of many ancient ones, to judge by the volume of extant commentary).
But there's also an argument that if you change the literal sense for ease of reading, you lose some of what makes the effort worthwhile - and long narrative epic is going to be an effort for any modern, and even more so one unfamiliar with ancient Greco-Roman culture, even in a translation that does some of the explanatory work for the reader.
So I understand your point, but I think we have to agree to disagree.
Perhaps an annotated Lattimore would be a good idea - even something on the scale of Peter Green's Apollonios. Peter Jones did actually produce a Companion to the Odyssey keyed to Lattimore - it was published in the UK by Bristol Classical Press (ISBN 9781853990380), now a Bloomsbury imprint, and in the US by the Southern Illinois University Press (ISBN 0809315475 / 9780809315475). It was part of a series aimed explicitly at students with little knowledge of classical languages or cultures.
>>7923993
>this happens with a lot of things in translation: you don't translate "vete a mierda" as "go to shit" because the end audience isn't aware of how swearing works in other cultures.
On this particular point, I think a translator has (at least) two options: convert the idiom into a target language equivalent, or leave it as is with a note. A reader whose priority is fluent reading will probably prefer the former; one who is reading to get an insight into the source text / cultre will probably prefer the latter.
>>7923993
>are you just afraid of free verse?
No. Verse imposes more constraints than prose. So if you give up on providing a Lattimore-style literal translation, and just want to communicate the sense and content in a pleasing manner, you're left with prose as the best option owing to its lack of formal constraints.
>>7923380
Edgy as it may sound, having read all the above for the first time (I have read The Iliad once before for school, in my native language), I enjoyed Lombardo's the most, followed by Fitzgerald, whose supposedly more accurate rendition of Greek names I found grating. I didn't care for Pope and Chapman, though I should mention I have read very little English poetry from before the 20th century so I'm in no position to comment or appreciate.
Would anyone knowledgeable care to recommend a prose translation (yes, the 'reading for plot' kind) that has some literary merit too? I've heard about Butler and Rieu. Any others of note? Which one would you pick for beauty of language, if you HAD to read one in prose?
>>7924175
>Yes, I agree
>but I think we have to agree to disagree.
?
Where you seem to disagree is that Homer is in his most diluted form only would be accessible to English speakers. I don't agree because I think Fagles has found a good middle ground between Lattimore's "without Greek, you're missing subtleties" and Lombardo's "without Greek, you must be a nineties kid". Fagles doesn't take all the meaning out, he does what you claim Lattimore does, even though Lattimore doesn't, and tries to preserve meaning erring on the side of non-classicists. I don't know why you're refusing to see that distinction, or that Lattimore doesn't make literal sense in English in places. It's not changing the literal sense; it's often transliteration which is not translation.
>Homer demands so much of the reader
It really doesn't, especially compared in translation to what it demanded of rhetors. That Lattimore assumes some background study on behalf of his readers in the Greeks is a strong point for readers who want more immersion in them, but his transliterations don't guarantee the reader to understand the literal sense of Greek terms or concepts.
In English, they don't always reach literal sense, and as you point out, most of the early glosses in Greek are things which Lattimore transliterates and which Greek scholars thought were too complex as concepts for Koine readers.
For the effort he puts in to preserve those features (and some other features like the rise and fall of beats or assonance etc), most readers will miss the point and the process without a knowledge of the original Greek recension.
I just don't think it's fair to Lattimore to say that readers will necessarily get it all from the first reading, or without deeper study in the original language. Fagles isn't writing an English version for people who are going on to learn Greek or have already learnt Greek, and caters to that audience. Lattimore's depth isn't going to be picked up by someone who doesn't speak Greek or study classics, so a lot of the benefit between Fagles and Lattimore is lost for the reader who doesn't do that extra leg work Lattimore assumes. You can still read Lattimore as an English speaker and get a lot out of it, but if you don't want to miss the literal sense, he is not the one to go for in English without a hefty stack of Greek commentary.
>>7924183
The problem with this is Lattimore chooses a third option, where it's left in the original without a note. Fagles chose the first option.
>>7924211
Again, Lattimore doesn't always communicate the sense in English, and doesn't note the sense in Greek. He just leaves the Greek sense and hopes you have a backing in classical texts. Most won't notice they are missing connotations which he was aware of because he communicates most of the content clearly, but Fagles understood a lot of people aren't going to bother or know how to find those connotations without it being translated. English sense doesn't make it not poetry.
>>7925509
>Where you seem to disagree is that Homer is in his most diluted form only would be accessible to English speakers.
No. I think a range of different types of translation are accessible to English speakers, depending on their background, levels of education and reading comprehension, aesthetics, and priorities. Fagles is one example; Lattimore another. I don't think it's illegitimate to paraphrase or explain in the text, but at the same time, I don't think it's illegitimate to represent the Greek sense for English readers who understand (and prefer) it. I prefer Lattimore largely because his approach aligns more with what I tend to look for in a translation. You and others have different priorities, and that's fine. Hence my saying that
>I think we have to agree to disagree
You say
>I don't agree because I think Fagles has found a good middle ground between Lattimore's "without Greek, you're missing subtleties" and Lombardo's "without Greek, you must be a nineties kid". Fagles doesn't take all the meaning out, he does what you claim Lattimore does, even though Lattimore doesn't, and tries to preserve meaning erring on the side of non-classicists. I don't know why you're refusing to see that distinction, or that Lattimore doesn't make literal sense in English in places. It's not changing the literal sense; it's often transliteration which is not translation.
On this we disagree: I have not seen a case where Lattimore fails to make sense or convey the Greek sense; although I agree with you that he is hard going at times because he tends to represent literally what is in the Greek, rather than paraphrase or convert the Greek sense into late 20th century American English. I didn't claim Fagles
>take[s] all the meaning out
I said, and think, that Lattimore represents more the literal sense of the Greek; while Fagles and others try to represent that sense in a less literal but more accessible way. Both are respectable approaches to translation. I just happen to prefer the Lattimoprean approach. I also think a Lattimorean style tends to age better than some others, because it is less dependent on contemporary popular usage.
BTW, "transliteration" usually refers to the writing of a word in a different alphabet; it is not usually a synonym for ultra-literal tranlsation. Lattimore practices transliteration with many names (e. g., using Akhilleus and Patroklos, rather than the Latinized Achilles and Patroclus).
I also think your criticism of Lattimore as demanding too much of the reader is a little unfair. His versions were published in 1951 and the mid-1960s, so are products of the early-to-middle 20th century, when the classics were still more widely taught and read, and less obscure, than they are fifty and sixty years on. There are also, as I've mentioned, commentaries for English speakers using his translations: Jones for the Odyssey, Malcom Willcock for the Iliad.
>>7924211 was not me, so I will leave that anon to respond there.
>>7924939
>Would anyone knowledgeable care to recommend a prose translation (yes, the 'reading for plot' kind) that has some literary merit too? I've heard about Butler and Rieu. Any others of note? Which one would you pick for beauty of language, if you HAD to read one in prose?
Most prose translations are, I think, more utilitarian. But aside from Butler and Rieu, ones people like are:
- Martin Hammond (Penguin for the Iliad; Bloomsbury imprint Duckworth for the Odyssey)
- AT Murray (the Loeb, each poem over two volumes; Iliad revised by William F. Wyatt; Odyssey by George E. Dimock)
- Lang, Leaf and Myers (Iliad), and Butcher and Lang (Odyssey) - older standard version, and somewhat archaic in style
- TE Lawrence ("of Arabia"), sometimes under the name TE Shaw - Odyssey only; in an archaizing literary style
>>7925795
>>Where you seem to disagree is that Homer is in his most diluted form only would be accessible to English speakers.
>No. I think a range of different types of translation are accessible to English speakers, depending on their background, levels of education and reading comprehension, aesthetics, and priorities.
>>7924175
>Yes, I agree that Lattimore can be difficult for those with no knowledge of Greek culture; however Homer in any but the most diluted form will be too, because the worldview that inspires and motivates the narrative and the characters is so alien.
I think they remain alien in Lattimore but are made less so in Fagles. You seem to have widened the goal posts now.
>On this we disagree: I have not seen a case where Lattimore fails to make sense or convey the Greek sense;
I said he conveys the Greek sense at the expense of making sense in English. A disagreement about him conveying the Greek sense (which is insensible in English by your argument about) is not possible as that is what I said: without Greek you are missing subtleties.
>I didn't claim Fagles [takes all the meaning out]
You claimed that Lattimore gives the literal sense better than Fagles. Literal sense is rarely found in any literal translation. Fagles maintains literal sensicality (paraphrase), while Lattimore sacrifices that for metaphrase. Considering you're trying to educate me on the meaning of transliteration, a word I chose because you seemed to not understand my defense of paraphrase in previous posts, I'm having obvious doubts about your ability to read Greek, and therefore your understanding of Lattimore.
This is coming across as someone who doesn't care to be wrong, but lacks the resources to understand even where our disagreements lie or where we form agreement. I know you want people to read Lattimore, but I worry it might just be for sunk cost on your part rather than a genuine understanding of him now. =/
>>7925839
> in English by your argument about)
*above, not about
clumsy figners
>>7925509
BTW, I think you quote me a little unfairly when you snip to
>Homer demands so much of the reader
What I said was
>>7924175
>I agree that Lattimore can be difficult for those with no knowledge of Greek culture; however Homer in any but the most diluted form will be too, because the worldview that inspires and motivates the narrative and the characters is so alien.
I didn't say that every version of Homer that represents him accurately will be equally difficult, just that (in Greek or English) he "can be difficult". What I was referring to was the various aspects of culture that are likely to be alien to the modern reader without much knowledge of ancient Greek culture or literature: the gods as an active apparatus, and flawed and factional and fallible; the concept of warfare by individuals and their followers in fractious alliances driven partly by personal motives; the notion of human beings as transferable property; the way significance is signalled by particular narrative features (e. g., an extended arning scene signals an important military passage for that figure); and so on.
Homer in any accurate version, regardless of its approach to translation, is not an easy read.
>>7925866
But there's are many versions written for school children.
>What I was referring to was the various aspects of culture that are likely to be alien to the modern reader without much knowledge of ancient Greek culture or literature: the gods as an active apparatus, and flawed and factional and fallible; the concept of warfare by individuals and their followers in fractious alliances driven partly by personal motives; the notion of human beings as transferable property; the way significance is signalled by particular narrative features (e. g., an extended arning scene signals an important military passage for that figure); and so on.
Such waffle and you fail to illustrate the aspects of culture which translation can actually communicate, such as personification of concepts as Gods, and which would be relevant to comparisons of Lattimore and Fagles. I'm sure you do feel hard done by a shortened quote reference in a post which just stayed within the character limit, but I feel you're a mealymouthed pseud, so what are we going to do about that?
>>7925839
We are simply using "literal sense" in different ways. To me, it means the literal meaning of the Greek words (thus, if Homer writes a form of "oinops", the literal sense is something like "wine-like", whereas "shining" or even "wine-dark" - as there is no element denoting "dark" in the Greek form, despite Liddell and Scott - is interpretation); while "sense" also embraces interpretation, paraphrase, and explanatory expansion.
I do understand your defence of paraphrase, and I have repeatedly conceded that it is a legitimate approach and preference. I just think we have different aesthetics and priorities. To me, Lattimore's approach seems to convey more accurately the meaning I find in the Greek; to you it doesn't, and you make a good case that Fagles is better for the reader without background in classics (and I've noted he is liked even by some with that background). That's a legitimate disagreement.
I disagree that with Lattimore one necessarily misses subleties without knowledge of Greek: I think that a person with some knowledge of Greek culture, or with the sort of aid provided by a commentary, can appreciate those subtleties. I think Lattimore's approach can also motivate the reader to learn about those subtleties, and what is conveyed; whereas a version that is more explanatory can suggest to the reader that they are not there.
>Considering you're trying to educate me on the meaning of transliteration, a word I chose because you seemed to not understand my defense of paraphrase in previous posts, I'm having obvious doubts about your ability to read Greek, and therefore your understanding of Lattimore.
I was not trying to do anything as condescending as you suggest, and I apologize if my expression suggested that I was. I was just saying how I usually understand "transliterate", and how I usually see it used. What you term "transliteration" seems to me to be covered better by a term like "ultra-literal translation". Some dismiss it as "translationese" - an artificial dialect of English existing only in ultra-literal translation. (The word "transliteration", of course, and as you surely know, has Latin, rather than Greek, antecedents.)
>This is coming across as someone who doesn't care to be wrong
As I have tried to convey, I don't claim to be right, or that you are wrong. I have consistently noted other opinions, including yours, and that what I say is a personal opinion and preference.
I just think there is room for different of opinion, and I think we have different opinions, based in different priorities, and different approaches to translation; and quite probably different backgrounds and experiences.
Anyhow, this has been the sort of stimulating thread that represents the best of /lit/, and I hope we can agree that we have different opions, and can have without rancour.
>>7925897
>But there's are many versions written for school children
And these tend to abridge, simplify, or recast the narrative in terms appropriate to the audience; just as children's Bibles tend to remove or simplify the more complex or difficult aspects of the source material.
I didn't explicitly refer to
>the aspects of culture which translation can actually communicate
because I was noting examples of ones that may be challenging to a modern reader without knowledge of the source culture; and based on which I think that unabridged Homer poses challenges to modern English readers regardless of the theory of translation adopted.
Again, there are different ways to address those challenges, and you've made a good case for one, while I have tried to defend another (clearly not to your satisfaction, but that is not unexpected, as you display a well considered opinion).
>>7925966
>wine-dark
this would be an example of where the translators assume the reader has a knowledge of Greek, not the straight mistranslation you want to make of it. it's a reference to Aeschylus and mortality of man.
The funny thing is that I prefer Lattimore, but you are proof of the problem which can arise from reading him. Students read him after being told he maintains the rhythm and assume he does, even for passages where he has disregarded the rhythm in favour of maintaining metaphrase. They learn that he deals in metaphrase, so they ignore the places where he uses paraphrase while denigrating Fagles for his paraphrases which make English sense. They assume that where it doesn't make English sense, it has preserved the Greek sense, when often it has been watered by translation. You should be able to see the problem with these oversights if you're a defender of Lattimore for reasons other than those students who are told these generalities make, but instead you seem exactly like one of those students. It's proof positive that telling someone lies like "he maintains the literal sense" will get them to parrot lies, not to do the depth of study required to understand where the subtleties actually lie instead of just repeating "he handles the subtleties well" while having no knowledge of what they are.
I like Lattimore and recommend him because I think he's more challenging than Fagles and some people will rise to that challenge and want to know how he did it not that he did it. You seem to be missing that subtlety. It's why you seem like a pretentious fraud to me, because as a Lattimore supporter, I don't go around telling people he preserves the imagery into English better than Fagles, because he doesn't. He isn't meant to. Arguing that he is and does is madness. It's not about priorities, it's that you claim these things are your priorities and obviously have not made them so.
>>7925984
>because I was noting examples of ones that may be challenging to a modern reader without knowledge of the source culture; and based on which I think that unabridged Homer poses challenges to modern English readers regardless of the theory of translation adopted.
You listed things which are in English works and in works of other cultures which have been translated. You tried to argue that even the concept of slavery is so foreign as to be translatable across cultures. They're stupid examples once you get past their irrelevance. But, bless you, you wanted to use a semicolon spree.
>>7926000
>translatable
*untranslatable
Iliad or Odyssey?
Which should I start with? I've heard Odyssey is the better one.
>>7926059
The Iliad
>>7926059
They are quite a bit different. The illiad is fairly morose and reads more like a historical or even religious account. The odyssey is more like a story, or a play. It has a very different feel to it.
Either way you should start with the illiad.
>>7926153
Fitzgerald is great poetry, don't worry.
Be sure to read aloud or at least subvocalise.
>>7926059
>>7926104
Is right. Some people have called the Odyssey the first novel, and it has something in common with later European episodic prose narratives. Also, it's essentially the story of a single nuclear family (Odysseus a. k. a. Ulysses trying to get home; his long-suffering, faithful wife Penelope, beset by unwanted suitors; and their son Telemakhos, of the generation too young for the Trojan War, and trying to find his father and his own place)
>>7926153
I really enjoyed fagles, but you can't go wrong with Lattimore or Fitzgerald either based on this threads discussion. I'd suggest leaving the Pope/Chapman translations for rereadings.
>>7926593
I've been having a bit of trouble finding a Fitzgerald (or any other) online, so I'm probably going to have to start with Pope anyway. These suggestions sure do help for if I ever want to actually get a real copy, though.
>>7921192
Nobody talks about Rieu ;_;bloody colonials
Of
>wine-dark
you say
>this would be an example of where the translators assume the reader has a knowledge of Greek, not the straight mistranslation you want to make of it. it's a reference to Aeschylus and mortality of man.
I didn't claim it was "mistranslation"; I characterized the "dark" part as an interpretation. Which it is. Much ink has been spilled arguing over what exactly "oinops" is meant to convey, and in what respect Homer / the Greeks might have compared the sea to wine (and some tendentious hypotheses have been proposed too). But one thing that is not explicitly in the word as written is "dark"; so translating "oinops" as "wine-dark" is a matter of interpretation.
I presume you do not seriously mean to claim that a Homer usage would be referring to Aiskhylos. (And if translators were importing an Aiskhylean reference into Homer, they would be guilty of anachronism, on the standard theories of the composition and chronology of both corpora.)
The funny thing, in view of your assumptions about me, is that I was never told Lattimore was more faithful, or "the best". As an undergraduate, I did a full Classics major (Latin and Greek) with Homer among the set authors; plus the equivalent of a third major in Classical Civilization, minus only the short self-study project that would have made it a full third major. During the course of this and a postgraduate degree also in Classics and also including Homer in an epic course, I was taught by a range of people who used and had preferences for different Homeric translations. I came to prefer and advocate Lattimore, because he served me better than the other translations I used and compared with the Greek.
I've said explicitly throughout this thread, as at >>7922646 for example, that I am not coming at it from the perspective of English poetry; that my preference is based on personal impressions and experience; and that I do not claim for that preference a status more authoritative than that.
I said of Lattimore that
>>7923794
>He preserves both sense and imagery, along with some elements of form
By which I meant that he tends to translate literally the words of the Greek, including description and simile. I did not say that
>he preserves the imagery into English better than Fagles
>>7926000
>>7926002
>You tried to argue that even the concept of slavery is so foreign as to be untranslatable across cultures
No. I said at >>7925866 that slavery is among features of the Homeric and the broader Greek world
>that are likely to be alien to the modern reader without much knowledge of ancient Greek culture or literature
I think it fair to assert that institutionalized slavery treated as a fact of life is alien to the experience and worldview of the average modern Anglophone with the education and the leisure to (want to) read Homer. Engaging with authors who treat slavery, and enslavement of civilian populations in war, as normal is one of the challenges of reading ancient literature.
All translations are good
>>7926680
>I presume you do not seriously mean to claim that a Homer usage would be referring to Aiskhylos. (And if translators were importing an Aiskhylean reference into Homer, they would be guilty of anachronism, on the standard theories of the composition and chronology of both corpora.)
You mean the composition of the rescension which happened at the same time as the early school boy glosses in Greek and at the same time as the recensions we have of Aeschylus. Yes, it almost like "Homer" didn't write it down in the 8th Century BC.
I understand you're talking about how it is an interpretation, but all translations are. Choosing out something which is a reference to broader Greek culture as an unfounded in the text interpretation while arguing Lattimore ought be able to do the same and have it called a translation instead of interpretation because of your own bias is ludicrous.
Your understanding of the broader culture and range of references has obviously remained sophomoric and this shines through when you claim it encourages one to learn more about broader Greek culture, but then decry other interpretations which link with broader Greek culture in a different and *more holistic* way.
>I am not coming at it from the perspective of English poetry;
>I said of Lattimore that
>>7923794
>He preserves both sense and imagery, along with some elements of form
You have since changed opinions from "He preserves [...]imagery" to "actually lol no he doesn't he just uses metaphrase instead of paraphrase" and "He preserves [..] sense" to "not in English, in Greek metaphrase, which isn't the Greek sense of the phrase or English literal sense". Please tell me I do not have to explain how cringeworthy that is. Fagles preserves imagery and sense from Greek by using paraphrase; you seem to want Lattimore to be both paraphrase and metaphrase and that is a fucking impossible task because even similes are formed differently in the two lexically speaking.
>I think it fair to assert that institutionalized slavery treated as a fact of life is alien to the experience and worldview of the average modern Anglophone with the education and the leisure to (want to) read Homer. Engaging with authors who treat slavery, and enslavement of civilian populations in war, as normal is one of the challenges of reading ancient literature.
Jesus, you're past mealymouthed and into me assuming you're a girl with dyed hair with SJW tendencies who blames men for everything and wants to know why nobody with admirable qualities wants to fuck her and pay her tuition. This is painful because Lattimore deserves a better spokesperson than you. You're trying to make him into something he's not so you don't seem ignorant. I'd ask other anons to disregard your opinions and read Lattimore regardless of how much cocks you suck, because Lattimore, unlike you, knew what he was doing.
>>7926791
I have not changed my opinion as you assert.
>You mean the composition of the rescension which happened at the same time as the early school boy glosses in Greek and at the same time as the recensions we have of Aeschylus. Yes, it almost like "Homer" didn't write it down in the 8th Century BC.
I am aware of the various theories of the origin of the text, and the problems of dating "Homer"; and also of the relatively late date of all extant manuscripts of early Greek literature. But even so, asserting that something in the textus receptus must be a reference to Aiskhylos because it suits one's interpretation, and is in theory possible, does not constitute evidence.
>I understand you're talking about how it is an interpretation, but all translations are.
Agreed.
>Choosing out something which is a reference to broader Greek culture
Not proven, as I noted.
>as an unfounded in the text interpretation while arguing Lattimore ought be able to do the same and have it called a translation instead of interpretation because of your own bias is ludicrous.
It would be ludicrous. Fortunately, I claimed and argued no such thing. Lattimore and Fagles are, both and alike, translations, and interpretations; and I used the example of "oinops" at >>7925966 simply and solely as an illustration of what I meant by "literal".
Of course all translation - even the most literal - is interpretation (and also a form of commentary). This does not prevent some translations from being more, and some less, literal in the sense I defined. Lattimore is as a rule among the more literal in this sense; Fagles is as a rule less literal in this sense.
But although I would recommend Lattimore, I would also recommend (as I did at >>7922693 above) that anyone - especially any Greekless reader - seriously interested in reading Homer use a range of translations. And I would include Fagles among those, noting, fairly I think, that his versions are well liked and widely praised, though they are less to my personal taste.
>>7927117
It's not assuming that Homer made the reference, it's making the reference to and audience who probably noticed it was a translation. All translations makes choices between poetic, literal, and imitation, but you wholly missed the potential for it to be a reference to broader Greek culture. Meanwhile, you want me to believe that you have picked up on the broader cultural references Lattimore uses. I call bullshit because you're now trying to argue that something which is a poetic choice is intended as a literal choice; that it missed the mark it aimed at because you thought it was aiming at a literal target.
Here's why l know you're a pseud: you've completed missed what Lattimore dedicated his effort to and tried to argue for what he sacrifices instead. He doesn't have to be as strong on conveying imagery and sense as Fagles is, because he wasn't trying to be. Just like other interpretations decided "I'm putting a reference to other culture points in here, and sacrificing the evidence of the text to relate it to a corpus" Lattimore chose to sacrifice imagery and sense in favour of sound. You say that he "preserves [...]some elements of form" which is either you making the largest understatement of Lattimore's strength in all criticism, or just being ignorant. He keeps awkward phrasings because the right letters are in the right places and keeps it in line with metaphrase, which loses some metaphorical and similes from the original, some literal sense in the target language, but it keeps the sounds of the original in order. What makes him good is that he says "fuck all that" to the points you're trying to defend him on in order to render the only thing which is similar sounding to the original form when read aloud by someone who knows what the original song was meant to sound like.
And this is a massssssive understatement in favour of the things he deliberately doesn't focus on because they're a necessary sacrifice, because you have no idea how hard a metaphrase translation is which still maintaining the original's form down to finding words which will have the same aural value. Recommending him for maintaining sense and imagery ignores his biggest selling point to classical students: if you're worried about a beat or aspiration, you can use Lattimore often to crib the sound. Not the sense, not the meaning, you need alternate resources for that in many cases, even where the literal sense of the line you're cribbing might have been translated by him the line above. He has a looser metre than Greek allows for, but the strength of his work is that it's not something which focuses on the metaphors or similes being preserved or making sense. The value of the work is that Lattimore went through every line, every word, preserving form as best you can without abandoning English entirely. You've picked battles that you can't win, because where Fagles has better translated sense/metaphor/image/meaning, Lattimore has sound and form as his defence
>>7927191
>and audience who probably noticed
*an audiene
>metaphorical and similes
metaphorical *sense and similes
>how hard a metaphrase translation is which still maintaining
*while still maintaining
it's late here. you're still a mealymouthed and wrong faggot.
>>7927191
You do not make clear whose "poetic choice" you claim "wine-dark" as a translation of "oinops" is. Actually, it goes back to Liddell and Scott's 19th century Greek-English Lexicon, where they give the primary sense of "wine-coloured", and suggest "wine-dark" for the Homeric usages in reference to the sea. And it certainly isn't Lattimore's choice; for he typically uses "wine-blue" in the formula "oinopa ponton".
As to the rest of your comment, it is curious that your statement of Lattimore's alleged aim is at odds with his own. He thought that "My aim has been to give a rendering of the Iliad which will convey the meaning of the Greek in a speed and rhythm analogous to the speed and rhythm I find in the original" and that "I must try to avoid mistranslation, which would be caused by rating the word of my own choice ahead of the word which translates the Greek". That's from his Iliad. In the Odyssey, he refers to the same statement, and explicitly emphasizes his attempt to be faithful to Homeric formulae.
That is, on his own account, Lattimore did prioritize sense, and fidelity to the words of the Greek text; while formally he aimed at something "analogous", not an exact replica (which is impossible, given the difference in sounds between Greek and English, and the differences between accentual [English] and quantitative [Greek] metrics).
And in using Lattimore alongside the Greek, or even alongside a faithful English prose translation, one sees this: he certainly does aim to give readers a sense of the effect of Homeric hexameter, and of the rhythm (using long, roughly six-beat, unrhymed lines, rather than the rhymes or shorter lines of earlier versions) and style of Homer, but at the same time he also generally matches the sense of the Greek as closely as "the plain English of today" (his description, in disavowing attempts at a poetical dialect) allows. It does not produce a natural, fluent contemporary English version, and its lack of appeal as English poetry is a common ground of criticism, but it does follow closely the sense of the Greek, even as it attempts to convey the effect.
Indeed, doing this is, as his own statements show, part of the project of replicating Homeric style and technique, because the formulae are an inescapable feature of the Greek text and a key element of their composition, but one often barely if at all visible in translations, because their authors do not seek to replicate the Homeric usage as Lattimore does.
The claim that Lattimore replicates the "sound" but NOT the sense of Homer does not stack up; nor does he in fact at all closely reflect the auditory effect of Homer, or any Greek or Latin dactylic hexameter poetry, read or recited aloud in metre - as you yourself concede in saying that
>He has a looser metre than Greek allows for
Rather, he creates an English form that both conveys the sense of the text, and gives a sense of the form and poetic technique.
>>7922716
Are the three Greek, Latin, and Mandarin?
