how good is this translation? Im a complete newfag to Homer and

File: 1447582609673.jpg (184KB, 565x747px) Image search: [Google]

184KB, 565x747px

I like Rodney Merrill. He writes in dactylic hexameter, and is very faithful in translation.

If you want a simple translation that is beautiful, although not extremely faithful in form or translation, Stanley Lombardo's is the best.

>>8341392

I have only read Fagles translation of Homer so far but it seems that they do what a translator should do, which is to carry over the spirit of the story as best they can. It doesn't rhyme or follow the form exactly as the original obviously.

>>8341392
I've read a half-dozen translations, and Fagles is quite solid: clear, not too clunky. Read, enjoy, try others.

Pope is king

>inb4 pretty poem quote

>>8341392
Who cares dude its gonna be the same idea

>>8341392
It's fine for a layman. Classicists will get buttmad because of minor inaccuracies to the Greek, but if you're not reading for academia that shouldn't be an issue.

The other two most common translations are Lattimore and Fitzgerald, both of which are great as well.

>>8341412
Merrill seems like a neat translation

>>8342359
Fagles is a great all-round translator and I think his stuff will be around for a long time to come. His theban plays are excellent. Though his Antigone isn't as poetic as Elizabeth Wyckoffs, it's a little more clear. I haven't fully read David Green's translation of Oedipus the King, but based on what I have glimpsed at Fagles seems quite a bit better.


>>8341392
To answer OP, Fagles is a great translation.

>>8342371
This is a meme. Do not fall for the meme. I'd rather be forcefed Chapman than rip through Pope's dust-bitten tripe.

>>8342403
>because of minor inaccuracies to the Greek

Like what? I'm a classicist, and I don't think Fagles has anything wrong at all in his translations, other than taking some poetic freedom.

Which is expected if you ask me because Greek is a hard language to translate in general.

>>8341392
Fantastic. Fagles, Fitzgerald, and Lattmore are the triumvirs of contemporary Homeric translation. Anyone who says otherwise is being an edgy contrarian, or a dumbfuck. You can't go wrong with any of the three, and as far as first time exposures go, you couldn't do better. As you read Homer many times over, you'll develop an ear for what you like, and find translations accordingly (e.g., I quite enjoyed Lombardos Iliad though he took many editorial leaps).

Out of the three I mentioned, I view them as follows:

Fagles- Great for first time readers, or a quick brush up with the story

Fitzgerald- To be read slowly, or aloud, and studied furiously to gleam the technique of Homer

Lattimore- To be studied for the more literary, less writing focused, mind. Basically, the guy I'd use if I were wriing a research paper

>>8341392

>Are there other ones that are better?

I like Pope the best

>>8343334
Listen to this anon!
Finally someone with sense.

>>8341412

>although not extremely faithful in form or translation, Stanley Lombardo's

>>8343334
> I quite enjoyed Lombardos Iliad though he took many editorial leaps

Could you please detail what you mean by Lombardo's inaccuracies or liberties with regards to the meaning--not interested so much in form and i think I understand where he went astray from Homeric form. After some research I've read both Iliad and Odyssey in his translation as first time reads and I don't regret it one bit--so far, at least. By the way, what would you recommend me for my second read? I found Fagles to be quite similar and a close second to Lombardo, when I was searching for my first translation. I'd like something more oriented toward the beauty of the poetic language, since I've got the story now, so to speak.

>>8341392
Why don't you read some samples and have your pick?

http://records.viu.ca/~johnstoi/homer/homertranslations.htm

>>8343334
>Lattimore- To be studied for the more literary, less writing focused, mind

Also, I don't understand what you meant by this.

>>8343580
If you are looking for pretty language, go with Fitzgerald. It may be my bias because I'm just coming off his Iliad for my 4th re-read, but he's great.

And just look at the first sentence of Lombardo:

"Rage: goddess, sing Achilles rage."

Thats an unconventional approach. Lattimore calls it "anger," Fitzgerald settles on "wrath." And while the rage of Achilles is primary to the Iliad, this translation is eccentric in its choice here to start like this and then repeat the emotion. It's just very obviously embellished. I wish I had my old copy here, but I recall hella alliteration, wierd textual effects like putting text in italicize if he starts rhapsodizing, and descriptions that are kinda cheesy (like "the black dog of death" iirc). Idk. Lombardo just very inmediately comes off as a having taken leaps. I remember my ultimate impression being that. You just gotta trust me on this one because my memory for precision is garbage and I sold my copy whenever I was finished with it (because I am a dumbass).

But, yeah, I'd always recommend Fitzgerald for a re-read, especially now that you onow the characters and story well.

>>8343593
For me, I'd turn to Fitzgerald to study Homer independetly as a writer, as someone trying to figure what it is that makes Homer enduring in a sense that can be imitable. That's because the language of Fitzgerald seems to be more fitted to affect Homer's literary style (if he-- or whoever the fuck composed and preserved the epics-- had any) whereas Lattimore strikes me as more for the English student or student of literature in the strictly academic sense because he doesn't seem to affect any poetic style as much as he is trying to give us a complete, controlled form in six syllables. And even think of the logic in the two translations. Fitzgerald adapts Homer for the English poetic ear, Lattinore tries to adapt Greek poetics to an English audience. One is more usable for a writer of English, I think. But then again I'm just an anon. Like I said, you develop an ear. You'll figure out your own.

>>8343580
>Could you please detail what you mean by Lombardo's inaccuracies or liberties with regards to the meaning
For instance, he has the Priam kiss the hand of Achilles (the text actually has Achilles kissing Priam's hand, which is how Merrill translates it); this makes more dramatic sense for us, but it would have made zero cultural sense to the Greeks: the kissing of the hand is how a youth shows respect to an elder (hence why "presbyters", the source of the word "priest" in English, but actually literally "elder", still have their hands kissed by the laity in Orthodox Christianity)..