There are several new translations, and one old translation re-released, coming for the Iliad. I was surprised to see that one was by Anthony Verity, whose work I really like. Stephen Mitchell and Alice Oswald are two others, and Richmond Lattimore is the one being re-published.
Quote:Mr Verity, a former Master of Dulwich College in London, declares that his translation “does not claim to be poetry.” Mr Mitchell, a translator who had little Greek before starting out on this project, claims that his version is more reliable as he bases it on a different edition of the text from Lattimore’s. By doing so, Mr Mitchell cuts what has, for centuries, been included in the performance tradition of the “Iliad”. Gone is the whole of Book Ten (“baroque and nasty”, apparently), most of the adjectives and fixed epithets that contribute to the life of Homer’s figures and, subsequently, most of the poetic value of Homer’s work. It is doubtful, for example, that Zeus, the father of the universe, would ever exclaim as Mr Mitchell has him do, that “I have a sensible plan”, or even that Achilles, tempestuous as he is, would rally “To hell with that man…I don’t give a damn about him.”
Similarly, although Mr Verity is far more restrained and scholarly in his translation, he too fails to capture the full force of Homer’s work. In Mr Verity’s translation, Achilles’s outburst above becomes the prim “I abominate his gifts, and I value him no more than a splinter.” Such differences may seem slight in comparison, but the accumulated result, whether of Mr Mitchell’s colloquialisms or Mr Verity’s carefulness, render these both rather dull literary works...
Ms Oswald has audaciously set out to translate the book’s atmosphere, rather than its story. A poet known for her landscape verse, Ms Oswald read classics at Oxford. The result is a work by someone who not only understands Homer’s Greek, but who also has an ear for modern verse. It is a delight to read...
Ms Oswald translates Homer’s similes literally, but paraphrases the rest, creating a modernised version that delights in the unexpected. She brings the poem’s violence shockingly to life: a figure dies as quickly as “a lift door closing”, suddenly obscured from view, while another soldier, stripping the dead, has “tin-opened them out of their armour”. Diomedes kills “Red-faced quietly like a butcher keeping up with his order”. Ms Oswald is aware that these characters can at times seem more horrific than heroic: “This is horrible this is some kind of bloodfeast”. And Hector waits for Achilles, “Like a man rushing in leaving his motorbike running”, both arrogant and charming at once.
The Economist
I haven't seen Oswald's version, but my past experiences with ancient verse being turned into modern verse have been very disappointing. And she mentions an elevator door in Homer?
hock:
I wonder what is the point of a translation that cuts out parts of the original?
It seems to me, and I have noticed this with other translations, that you are only getting what the tranlator wants you to read, or his interpretation of the meaning of the original, not the original translated so you can make you own mind of the importance of a section of text.
Are there any translations which do not edit the original?
I prefer the sound of Verity's 'I value him no more than a splinter' to 'I don't give a damn about him', which seems like the wrong sort of modernisation. The Oswald translation actually seems quite interesting - but I'm a fan of Christopher Logue's 'War Music', which runs along much the same lines. You read different translations for different purposes, and both visceral reworkings and scrupulous accuracy are welcome, if done well.
I just ran across another review in the WSJ for Mitchell's translation.
It's not all Greek to him
Quote:Stephen Mitchell's take on "The Iliad," the first major new translation in nearly 15 years, is an action-packed, slick and contemporary rendering of the Trojan war saga. Mr. Mitchell took some unusual liberties: He cut about 1,100 lines, modernized the dialogue and left out most of the fusty-seeming descriptors attached to each character (swift-footed Achilles, bright-eyed Athena, crafty Odysseus).
The text is peppered with modern slang. Helen refers to herself at one point as a "bitch" (the Greek original is "dog-eyed one"). Elsewhere, Hector yells a phrase at a soldier that could be literally translated as "Begone, cowardly puppet." Other translators have struggled with the insult, rendering it as "wicked doll," "rag doll" and "glittering little puppet." In Mr. Mitchell's translation, Hector yells, "Go ahead, sissy, run!" And when Achilles rails at Hector, he doesn't call him, "You doer of deeds not forgotten," as the original Greek reads. Instead, Mr. Mitchell has Achilles say, "Don't talk to me of agreements, you son of a bitch."
Mr. Mitchell defends his movie-style dialogue. "If you translate literally, the English may sound stilted or phony," says Mr. Mitchell. Asked if he thought his version would stir controversy, he laughed. "Of course," he said. "That's how scholars earn their living, by disputing things."
So he cut out the descriptive phrases? I think the "wine-dark sea" is one of my all-time favourites, right up there with "rosy-fingered dawn."
Edit: I believe this is the same Stephen Mitchell that wrote the two-volume Anatolia, the best Roman history book I've read in years.
I don't get why writers feel they have to "modernize" every ancient text, sometimes going so far as to add colloquial sayings that would have been utterly meaningless to the original writer. If we wanted to read the Cliff's Notes version, we would. Otherwise, why not just translate it as it was written, to the best of our linguistic abilities. If a phrase or metaphor doesn't make sense to the modern, isn't that what they use footnotes for?
Grumping, I know. I'll settle down one of these days.
Quote:I wonder what is the point of a translation that cuts out parts of the original?
There are plenty of scholars who believe that the book in question was not part of the original but was added later. Mitchell just decided to leave it out. I agree that using modern slang in such a translation is hurting wrong fun.
I had to use my own translations in an upcoming book because I was after technical aspects of equipment, which tend to disappear or change during most translations.
Quote:Gaius Julius Caesar post=298228 Wrote:I wonder what is the point of a translation that cuts out parts of the original?
There are plenty of scholars who believe that the book in question was not part of the original but was added later. Mitchell just decided to leave it out. I agree that using modern slang in such a translation is hurting wrong fun.
hock: :eek: :eek: :lol:
Quote:I don't get why writers feel they have to "modernize" every ancient text, sometimes going so far as to add colloquial sayings that would have been utterly meaningless to the original writer.
Me neither. Apart from that they want to add something personal - it's quite normal to mention the translator if an ancient text is reprinted. I do not mean editor - I know a lot of publications on ancient texts, and usually the text is discussed and older translations are discussed too, but that's something altogether different. In these cases, it's 'just' modernising the language. Read any modern Bibles lately?
Quote:Read any modern Bibles lately?
You'd be surprised, Robert.
I get the impression that new translations -- particularly of Homer -- are designed to engage younger readers who aren't really moved by the sonorous phrases that some of us here know and love. Also, I read somewhere that many new translations seek to capture the "feel" of the text by paraphrasing rather than translating literally. That probably works for poetry -- less successful for history, I'd've thought.
And, just as an aside -- I was amazed to see that a "new" English translation of Tacitus' Histories was actually a tidying-up exercise on a very old translation, without the "translator" having gone back to the original Latin text. Bizarre.
Quote:There are several new translations, and one old translation re-released, coming for the Iliad.
Just stumbled across
this review (New Yorker magazine, 1 Nov 2011), which you might find interesting.
For the most part I'm all for modernising the text, so long as it still resembles the original. It seems to me that there are just as many instances of 'old' translations which, whilst full of gravitas, still paraphrase the original in order to achieve flow and, as Duncan said, those 'sonorous phrases'.
Let's not also forget that those older translations, for example the turn of the 20th century versions which are often available free online, are representative of the language and styles of the early 20th century, not the ancient world. Although I'm no expert on Greek language, the reviews I've read of Fagles' modern translation of the Iliad stick far closer to the original than many previous attempts, which often sanitise the violence by avoiding too literal a translation; e.g. Fagles will have a combatant's 'intestines unravelling from the gaping wound' whereas older translations would simply state that the combatant was 'mortally wounded', even when the original Greek explicitly states the wound involved the man's intestines spilling out.
That said, I do think using modern idioms and colloquialisms give the text too short a shelf life and serve only to make the work seem dated soon after publication.
Quote:That said, I do think using modern idioms and colloquialisms give the text too short a shelf life and serve only to make the work seem dated soon after publication.
Quite so. The most bizarre recent example of this was an American translation (not sure by whom) of Catullus 16: '
Pedicabo ego uos et irrumabo' is rendered as 'I'll sodomize and
clintonize you'. This was probably quite witty back in the 90s, but in another couple of decades will surely be completely meaningless...
As for Homer - I think there are sufficient translations of such varying quality and accuracy that new interpretations can always add something. They don't detract from the original, and may potentially throw more light upon it. The greater problem, as I'm sure we can all agree, lies in misleading translations of less well known texts, which in the absence of alternatives may appear definitive.
Personally I dislike this trend to put modern language and even modern city names in new translations. I like Archaic language, whether it is British or Dutch when I read translated work. I would love seeing this trend abolished since it takes out a lot of the advantages one gets reading a literal translation.
M.VIB.M.
Quote:Personally I dislike this trend to put modern language and even modern city names in new translations. I like Archaic language, whether it is British or Dutch when I read translated work. I would love seeing this trend abolished since it takes out a lot of the advantages one gets reading a literal translation.
M.VIB.M.
But that language is still unrepresentative of the text, being as it is a modern translation. I can't speak for the Dutch but the English versions are only representative of, at the earliest, how 18th century translators constructed the extant Latin text.
If, however, it's that particular style that certain people enjoy, then you also have to concede that others have different tastes, and if modern versions using today's English or Dutch get people interested who would otherwise have shied away from those older, more awkward (to some modern eyes)versions, then it's all to the good as far as I can see.
-I do agree about using modern place names however.