Translations of Homer - advice needed

[phillipgr]

Hi there,

I'm looking to read the Iliad and Odyssey for the first time and want to make sure that I read the right translation. It seems as though there is a sea of translations and hence I know not where to start.

I have quite good reading comprehension. I can read Shakespeare without too much trouble, though I do not claim to be able to read it in its full depth. I'm 17 and have been reading classics for maybe a year, so I'm no sage of literature - though I can say I've come a decent way since I first started reading poetry. I want a translation which is not so ambitious that I wont be able to enjoy it in its fullness, though not so simple that I do not experience Homer's genius.

I've thought about reading Chapman's Homer (largely due to Keats), do you think it is suitable? Which translation do you think is the best and why?

Thanks.

[stlukesguild]

Robert Fagles or Robert Fitzgerald. Allen Mandelbaum would be a distant third. Chapman? No. If you want a historic Homer, read Alexander Pope's... but recognize that it is far more Pope than Homer.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Check out this thread (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=60304).

[phillipgr]

Thanks for the link Mutatis.

I'm looked to Homer for a literary experience rather than a historical study so I think I'll stay away from Pope's. Thanks StLukesguild! Why do you say no to Chapman?

[LitNetIsGreat]

I would also recommend the Rieu translation.

[Charles Darnay]

I've read a few translations....I would say my favourite is Fagles, particularly if you are looking to Homer for literary entertainment. Some translators are too concerns with preserving the meter of the Greek text, and I find that this takes away from the enjoyment of the text, even if there is some value in this. Fagles does not do this.

[mal4mac]

I'd take a crack at the Odyssey first - it's much easier going!

There's no one 'right translation'.

My vote is also for Rieu, but that just reflects my taste. Rieu's is a servicable prose translation that reads like a novel written by, say, Conrad.

Fagles' reads more like the kind of poetic epic that Tennyson and his ilk used to write ... though Fagles is no Tennyson, and certainly no Shakespeare.

Might be best learning Ancient Greek, as you are so young, ... the experts usually point out that no translation has ever done Homer justice ... that's the only way to enjoy him in his "fullness", I guess.

(Note, the experts are not usually so disparaging of translations of Tolstoy, Montaigne, Goethe, ... Homer seems to be the most difficult of the greats to translate... especially his poetic style...)

[Charles Darnay]

(Note, the experts are not usually so disparaging of translations of Tolstoy, Montaigne, Goethe, ... Homer seems to be the most difficult of the greats to translate... especially his poetic style...)

See I haven't come across this so much with Homer. While the original is always seen as better (for the topological reason that it is the original) I haven't come across too much griping about the English translations. When looking into the Aeneid on the other hand, every scholar complains about so-and-so's translation - either they butcher the poetry, or they butcher the work by staying too close to the poetry.

[henriquefb]

isn't nobody here fond of Lattimore?

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I think prose translations take something away from the essential feel of the *poem*. I've read both verse and prose translations.

[The Ol' Man]

I would advocate Chapman's translation. Keats upon this choice is consonant:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_First_Looking_into_Chapman's_Homer

[Stewed]

Why not take a few off the shelf at the library (if you're near a decent sized one) or bookstore (if they've got more than one translation) and compare a few lines to see which you like better?

For the Iliad, I read Fagles and Pope. I think I preferred Pope, of the two. Or maybe Fagles for the talking, Pope for the fighting. I haven't read Lattimore, but I've heard good things.