4 ms·
Pope's translation, using rhyming couplets, is very much a product of its time and is, in many ways, more a re-performance of Homer than a translation. I've not
by dhosek 6y ago
Pope's translation, using rhyming couplets, is very much a product of its time and is, in many ways, more a re-performance of Homer than a translation. I've not yet read Wilson's translation. Richmond Lattimore's translation is a great translation although also a product of its time (it strives to produce a line-for-line literal translation) which I feel is better than his former friend Robert Fitzgerald's translation. Originally the two friends were to translate the Iliad (Lattimore) and the Odyssey (Fitzgerald). The story goes that Lattimore found Fitzgerald's translation so wanting that he then proceeded to produce his own translation of the Odyssey and Fitzgerald in turn produced his own translation of the Iliad and the two men stopped speaking to each other.
- 082349872349872 6y agoTranslations are a bit like Helen vs #nofilter Penelope: they may be either very beautiful or very faithful, but unless one has been blessed by the gods, that or is exclusive.
- dhosek 6y agoFitzgerald, imho, is neither beautiful nor faithful. We compared some passages side by side between Fitzgerald and Lattimore in my Epic and Scripture class and Fitzgerald was just ugly in his attempts to modernize the language rather than let Homer's word choices stand on their own (pretty much anywhere Lattimore used the more literal "winged words" Fitzgerald chose something clunky and pedestrian trying to interpret the metaphor. The comparison of first lines at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_translations_of_Homer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_translations_of_Homer does a good job of giving some sense of the differences in style between various translations.
- aynsof 6y agoI love Fitzgerald's translations! I find Lattimore utterly dull and lacking in poetry; Fitzgerald is readable and fun, in my view. Each to their own, of course, but I wanted to provide a counterpoint to anyone out there deciding on a translation to read.
- brudgers 6y agoor Scylla and Charybdis?
- oh_sigh 6y agoNot trying to be snarky, but isn't everything a product of its time? Is there some work that has been timeless? Shakespeare maybe?
- devindotcom 6y agoI think in this case, Pope's style was exemplary of the state of English-language poetry. He excelled in the form rather than challenging it. (I love his translation but it's certainly far from "accurate." A "re-performance" is a great way of putting it.) An example of the opposite, as hackneyed as it is appropriate, is Moby Dick. Melville was a popular author who created something that was very out of sync with the era (to which previously he had suited his style) and as it turns out very interesting - but only once the zeitgeist had advanced.
- goto11 6y agoShakespeare is certainly also product of his time. What is meant is probably "dated" or "did not age gracefully" which is not exactly the same. Today translators are expected to be reasonable faithful to the source material. Adding rhymes to verses which is not originally rhymed, like Pope does, represent an older tradition where the translator had more free reign. Modern readers would probably expect a more faithful translation.
- adamsea 6y agoGood question :). Yeah Shakespeare is a great example. The King James Bible might be the ur-example, as I’ve heard it said that it’s so influential it basically shaped the English language. As another poster said, the phrase “product of its time” in this case is talking about if the language holds up over time or ends up sounding dated and thus loses its luster.