Translation

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

Yes. Are you a translator yourself? You are apparently well versed in ancient Greek. How different is modern Greek from say 5th century BC Greek?

---

No, I don't translate in any professional capacity; the only translating I have done is for my own pleasure (and for assignments from various Greek courses I have taken). Maybe I should have made it more clear that I make no claim of authority so my posts should be taken with a grain of salt.

I don't know modern Greek, but AFAIK it is quite different from 5th century BC Greek (for those who are curious, that's the period of Herodotus, Thucydides, Pindar, Aeschylus, Sophocles, Euripides, Aristophanes, Antiphon); a classicist with no prior experience with modern Greek would not be able to communicate in modern Greek.

this is really stupid. i think you could do alot better. all im saying is that you should try to work on it some more

I too have found the various translations of Homer to be either too literal or too self-indulgent without enough consideration for the reading public. The idea that Homer will ever hold the magic that he held for an audience of illiterates is purely academic in nature and no longer applies to the present era.
To amplify another point about Homeric translations: They are either ponderous out of a misguided sense of textual respect, or presumptuous, interpreting more or less than the bard intended. We should first inform ouselves that primitive folk intended these tales to be appreciated by each and every member of the family, with life-experience imparting to the parents that the gods and demigods were not to be taken too seriously, and to children that their actions could result in desastrous consequences if they did not pay heed to what the storyteller said. In other words, Zeus and the other collective gods were a sort of amalgamated Santa Claus to children, intended to keep them on the straight-and-narrow, while to their parents it was a ripping tale that they half-believed, that is, they believed in some of the higher gods, but not necessarily in the fantastic situations that Homer placed them in.

After that fault-finding with previous interpretations of Homer, it might seem foolhardy to offer up yet another attempt at cracking the case, yet this is what I have tried to do with a small part of the text, and in rimed hexameter verse. It either works or it doesn't, so you be the judge:


Homer, The Iliad (end of book 1)


Then the lady Hera of the eyes of oxen stated:
"O dreadfulest of Kronos, what is this that you've related?
I've never inquired or questioned you greatly up to now,
But feel free thinking about what you desire anyhow.
That you've been led astray I feel terror deep in my soul stir,
Due to Thetis the silvery-footed child of the briny's oldster.
For, beginning at dawn she was clasping your two knees and squatting,
And I think you assented to honor Akhilleus by nodding,
And by the Akhaian vessels massacre many a man of their folk."
Zeus who is the gatherer of clouds, returning with words to her, spoke:
"O befuddled one, I can't flee you, you're always suspecting;
Yet you won't be able to do a thing in thus reflecting,
No, but you'll be further from my heart, and for you it'll worsen;
And if it's as you say, it's what's pleasing to my person.
But be seated unheard now, and the words that I'm uttering yield to,
Lest all of the gods on Olympos be useless to shield you
When I approach with invincible hands upon you extended."
He spoke, and Hera the oxen-eyed whom fear had attended
Sat in silence as she thoroughly repressed her unlucky heart.
Worried were the sky gods in the house of Zeus, hearing him impart.
Then Hephaistos the famous smith faced the aggregation
To bring forth to his white-armed beloved mother consolation:
"This will turn out to be an unbearable disaster, in truth,
If you two on account of mortals begin to dispute
By bringing bickering among the gods, and so a lack of delight
Will take place at the glorious feast, since evil is winning the fight.
And I advise my mother, who is herself not unperceptive,
To try being to Zeus, our well-beloved father, receptive,
That father be enraged no more to spoil our eating.
Should the lord Olympian of lightning wish our unseating,
And because he is the mightiest, fling us from where we are sitting---
But do indeed yourself to him in soothing words go bidding,
And then straightaway we'll have again the Olympian's favor.
So he spoke, and darted up before his mother and gave 'er
A two-handled goblet in hand, addressing 'er and saying:
Courage, my mother, and bear up, albeit to you it's dismaying,
Lest beloved though you be, my eyes were to witness you battered.
Come to that, I won't be able to help, even though I am shattered,
Because the Olympian is powerful in resistance.
Why, he grabbed my foot once when I was coming to your assistance,
Flung me by that from the awesome door, sent me downwardly heading;
And all through the day I fell, but when the sun was over with setting,
Hurtled into Lemnos with little life in me left surviving;
Then, having fallen, was nursed at once by the Sintian men arriving."
He spoke, and Hera the creamy-armed goddess smiled in favor,
And smiling upon her son, took from his hand the cup he gave 'er.
To all the gods left he went in right directions t'ward them,
And with dips from the wine crater the sweet-tasting nectar poured them.
Then from the lucky gods arose rabid laughter from observing
The way Hephaistos rushed about throughout the palace serving.
Thus onwards they ate all day until the setting sun was hidden;
Nor of the feast was a soul an equal share forbidden,
Nor none kept from the beautiful lyre held by Apollo,
And lovely-voiced Muses who sang replies as their turns would follow.
But later when the radient bright rays of the sun descended,
Then each one went to his own abode with sleep intended---
Homes that for all and sundry were crafted deftly in these places,
Due to Hephaistos the renowned of the limping paces.
T'ward his bed went Zeus, Olympian master of the lightning, where
Then as now he would take rest when to him sweet sleep would nightly fare.
Here he now climbed up and slept beside Hera of the golden chair.

I don't think a "justifiable" translation from Greek to English has anything to do with succeeding/failing at translating. Sure reading something will be different than listening to a performer but it's unfair to say the translations fail because of this (not to even get into the origins of the epics attributed to Homer). Also because one may consider it "boring" to read the texts is far from a translator failing. The influence and lasting power of the Odyssey gives tremendous support to the success of the tales, whether read aloud, read silenty, sang to music or whatever.

Thanks for offering your translation, dalton; I whipped up a quick translation of the first few lines of the Iliad myself in the favorite first lines thread.

I guess discussion of translations can go on forever. I agree with the points brought up by both dalton and meddle_some. I suppose any translation, especially of poetry, reflects the vision of the translator. Every translator has his own prioritization of what most needs to come through. In comparison to other Greek poetry, though, I think Homer is very translatable.

Enjoyed your English rendering. Reminds me of mine before I set it to rime. My task was to try be be almost as literal as you, keep the syllabic count and stress (our English stress, that is), avoid consonant clusters that would impede the flow (the last being, in my opinion, a major drawback of Pope's version) and use evocative words without reverting to archaisms. Alas, I only managed to complete the first book. I keep telling myself that one of these days I'll take up where I left off, but who am I kidding. I forget which of the many translators it was, who, asked how he enjoyed having the privilege of setting down Homer into English, replied: "Sir, I would fain spend a year in debtor's prison than to ever again be chained to that demanding master."
Perhaps your patience will prove more enduring than mine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dalton

My task was to try be be almost as literal as you, keep the syllabic count and stress (our English stress, that is), avoid consonant clusters that would impede the flow (the last being, in my opinion, a major drawback of Pope's version) and use evocative words without reverting to archaisms.

---

You certainly did an admirable job. The translation is accessible and vivid. I think completing the first book is quite an accomplishment.

I have to admit that the feminine rhymes clash a bit against my own sense of Homer's Iliad, but that's just me.

Quote:

---

Perhaps your patience will prove more enduring than mine.

---

Thanks for the encouragement, but I actually never intended to translate any more than the first two lines. I saw the thread about favorite first lines, and I like the opening of the Iliad so much I wanted to post it there. Even though I posted it to a public forum, I did the translation mostly as an exercise for myself, so it suffers from the lack of consideration for the reading public that you mentioned earlier.

Quote:

---

I forget which of the many translators it was, who, asked how he enjoyed having the privilege of setting down Homer into English, replied: "Sir, I would fain spend a year in debtor's prison than to ever again be chained to that demanding master."

---

I'll have to remember this quote.

Thanks for the compliment. No, your lines are quite battle-worthy for a tentative attempt. Better than most.
I had attempted a version with the dactyl as end-rime, but after ten or twelve lines I realized that I was sacrificing meaning because of the fewer rime schemes inherent with that device. In my mind, the semantics of a translation should always be the main concern.

Your point seems to be that Homer is boring, and with the aid of some musical instrument, maybe even more than one, his works will become less boring. This reminds me of a friend who said that Beethoven would be less boring if his symphonies were played faster or in a modern fashion (rap, rock?). Many people find Beethoven, and even Mozart boring, but who is at fault? If you think that the great classic composers are boring, it simply means that you don´t have the ability to appreciate them, and in the case of the literary classic, it means you don´t understand the books. Many people, if pressed, will confess that they think Shakespeare boring too. Homer and Shakespeare are not at fault. Homer has been read for over two thousand years so he obviously passed the test of time. To understand any of the classics requires some intelectual commitment and a good dose of humility. -snip- Comment by moderator: Do not make derogatory personal remarks, the original poster is entitled to his or her opinion. Please read the forum rules!

Of course no translation will be good, and Virgil, by the way it is Robert Fagles not Fagels. His translation I feel to be one of the finest, but I agree nothing really cuts it.

You must accept it, that no other language can maintain that meter, and that accuracy, especially since our language (English) isn't supportive of that meter at all.

Looks like I have stumbled over this thread long after it is dead, but as the Iliad still lives so might this thread.

Having been sucked into reading the Iliad by first seeing the movie version TROY and experiencing the overwhelming hauting power of the stripped down story, it makes which translation seem a little less important. (The fleshy nature of Brad Pitt's Achilles seems to lend itself to the power of this story.) Still when I am reading I want a translation that resonates with me whose rhythyms and general energy I like, so translation is important and I want to thank folks for their opinions therewith. I am stuck with Samuel Butler's Iliad right now. I happened to find a copy of the Odyssey translated by Robert Fitzgerald laying around and I can tell right now Fitzgerald's style definitely feels better than Butler's to me. I tend to not analyze this kind of thing so much however,--it is largely intuitive to me.

Audience is a point which the movie version vs. the written word makes me see more clearly. As a bonus the movie TROY makes the Iliad accessible to the literate and semi-literate public alike. Homer not only had to entertain an audience of a variety of opinions to be popular and make a living, he undoubtable entertained kings and nobles and had to worry about offending anyone and getting his head chopped off or such. So his message, if a moral one, and I think Homer was a moral type, must be disguised in the story.

Greek God were above good and evil but that doesn't mean some concept of good and evil did not exist, however I suppose it was not too popular. The screen play of TROY, (and I think there is a novel version call TROY and that may be what the screenplay is based on), has allowed a more clearly readable moral theme: Pro-love, anti-lechery, and anti-war/violence. I can see the Gods representing the capriciousness of fate and the powers and equations of the powers that be good, evil and inbetween, largely inbetween, but they are also a huge distraction from the stripped down story, and there are other details. I thought the difference between Helen in the movie vs. Helen in the Homeric poem were interesting.

In the end, how do we know how and how much Homer was influenced by his listening public to how he shaped and editied his story? We do know Homer is not the last story teller to experience censorship from the reading/listening public and have that influence what they commercially produced.

The other problem with all Homer's smoke screens is I think they not only detract from his saintly moralist message, but they distract from the clear trajectory of the story, making the whole thing harder to follow and yes, perhaps a little boring. But this way there was something for everyone and Homer would still have his head in the morning. Dumb violent brutes would never be able to figure it out to complain.

peace,

storyG

Looks like I have stumbled over this thread long after it is dead, but as the Iliad still lives so might this thread.

Having been sucked into reading the Iliad by first seeing the movie version TROY and experiencing the overwhelming hauting power of the stripped down story, it makes which translation seem a little less important. (The fleshy nature of Brad Pitt's Achilles seems to lend itself to the power of this story.) Still when I am reading I want a translation that resonates with me whose rhythyms and general energy I like, so translation is important and I want to thank folks for their opinions therewith. I am stuck with Samuel Butler's Iliad right now. I happened to find a copy of the Odyssey translated by Robert Fitzgerald laying around and I can tell right now Fitzgerald's style definitely feels better than Butler's to me. I tend to not analyze this kind of thing so much however,--it is largely intuitive to me.

Audience is a point which the movie version vs. the written word makes me see more clearly. As a bonus the movie TROY makes the Iliad accessible to the literate and semi-literate public alike. Homer not only had to entertain an audience of a variety of opinions to be popular and make a living, he undoubtable entertained kings and nobles and had to worry about offending anyone and getting his head chopped off or such. So his message, if a moral one, and I think Homer was a moral type, must be disguised in the story.

Greek God were above good and evil but that doesn't mean some concept of good and evil did not exist, however I suppose it was not too popular. The screen play of TROY, (and I think there is a novel version call TROY and that may be what the screenplay is based on), has allowed a more clearly readable moral theme: Pro-love, anti-lechery, and anti-war/violence. I can see the Gods representing the capriciousness of fate and the powers and equations of the powers that be good, evil and inbetween, largely inbetween, but they are also a huge distraction from the stripped down story, and there are other details. I thought the difference between Helen in the movie vs. Helen in the Homeric poem were interesting.

In the end, how do we know how and how much Homer was influenced by his listening public to how he shaped and editied his story? We do know Homer is not the last story teller to experience censorship from the reading/listening public and have that influence what they commercially produced.

The other problem with all Homer's smoke screens is I think they not only detract from his saintly moralist message, but they distract from the clear trajectory of the story, making the whole thing harder to follow and yes, perhaps a little boring. But this way there was something for everyone and Homer would still have his head in the morning. Dumb violent brutes would never be able to figure it out to complain.

peace,

storyG