The original is tinted with grief, the English translation seems to reminisce of times that were good and now gone. It is true that translations are not the same as the original but it is also true that good scholars are artists of a kind. Art is always interpreted by those who see it or hear it and find a "truth" in that interpretation. So bravo to all those who, including you professor, help us through the gates of understanding.
A very good point. Εἶπέ τις is not "they told me" because singular is not plural, and this translation is so widely known that it obscures our view of the original. And even when the translation is right ... someone was trying to sell Tennyson's translation of the end of iliad 8 as being as good as the original. He has "look beautiful" for φαίνετ’ ἀριπρεπέα. Correct, but also not poetically even close.
It's impossible to say this without sounding snobbish and gatekeeping, but the only honest answer to What is the best translation of Homer (or any other Greek poet) is, none of them. Looking Into Chapman's Homer is better than nothing, but only just.
I say this as someone who thinks that War and Peace is the best novel I have ever read, and I don't read a word of Russian, so I am acutely aware that my own enjoyment of literature is limited by my failure to acquire foreign languages.
This highlights and reminded nfs the true art of translations. How important it is to get it right. Do you think modern translations of works are necessary and relevant to grasp the works better or in a new light?
I’m sorry I didn’t make my question clear. What I meant to say is are the newer translations better or more accurate? Or are older translations truer to the original?
Varies hugely. Take translations of Homer, for instance. Some older translations are close to the sense (e.g. Butcher and Lang's Homer) but may be couched in an idiom unappealing to a modern reader. Others are somewhat loose but can be fun and easy to read (e.g. Pope's Odyssey in rhyme). New translations are always needed because readers' understanding changes. Some translations such as Hammond's are both accurate and readable, but in prose; Fitzgerald, Fagles, Wilson are all reasonably accurate, but variously readable depending on taste, and they are in verse - which gets us into questions of whether a translation captures the true feel of the original as well as the sense.
I make regular translations of Catullus' poems into rhyming English, keeping as close to the sense as I can, but making them fun and readable as I think that captures the feel of the originals. Peter Green's recent translation of Catullus is marvellous and accurate, but I want to hear more rhyme and rhythm because that works in English (not in Latin of course). Not all will share my feeling about this, but those who do appreciate the effort. I will post something on it!
The original is tinted with grief, the English translation seems to reminisce of times that were good and now gone. It is true that translations are not the same as the original but it is also true that good scholars are artists of a kind. Art is always interpreted by those who see it or hear it and find a "truth" in that interpretation. So bravo to all those who, including you professor, help us through the gates of understanding.
A very good point. Εἶπέ τις is not "they told me" because singular is not plural, and this translation is so widely known that it obscures our view of the original. And even when the translation is right ... someone was trying to sell Tennyson's translation of the end of iliad 8 as being as good as the original. He has "look beautiful" for φαίνετ’ ἀριπρεπέα. Correct, but also not poetically even close.
It's impossible to say this without sounding snobbish and gatekeeping, but the only honest answer to What is the best translation of Homer (or any other Greek poet) is, none of them. Looking Into Chapman's Homer is better than nothing, but only just.
I say this as someone who thinks that War and Peace is the best novel I have ever read, and I don't read a word of Russian, so I am acutely aware that my own enjoyment of literature is limited by my failure to acquire foreign languages.
Traduttore traditore as the saying goes. A translator is a betrayer.
That’s strong! And true!
Pictures of Lily :(
This highlights and reminded nfs the true art of translations. How important it is to get it right. Do you think modern translations of works are necessary and relevant to grasp the works better or in a new light?
They are certainly necessary. Few can read the originals, and all translations date.
I’m sorry I didn’t make my question clear. What I meant to say is are the newer translations better or more accurate? Or are older translations truer to the original?
Varies hugely. Take translations of Homer, for instance. Some older translations are close to the sense (e.g. Butcher and Lang's Homer) but may be couched in an idiom unappealing to a modern reader. Others are somewhat loose but can be fun and easy to read (e.g. Pope's Odyssey in rhyme). New translations are always needed because readers' understanding changes. Some translations such as Hammond's are both accurate and readable, but in prose; Fitzgerald, Fagles, Wilson are all reasonably accurate, but variously readable depending on taste, and they are in verse - which gets us into questions of whether a translation captures the true feel of the original as well as the sense.
I make regular translations of Catullus' poems into rhyming English, keeping as close to the sense as I can, but making them fun and readable as I think that captures the feel of the originals. Peter Green's recent translation of Catullus is marvellous and accurate, but I want to hear more rhyme and rhythm because that works in English (not in Latin of course). Not all will share my feeling about this, but those who do appreciate the effort. I will post something on it!
Thank you. I love hearing the sound of the original.