Uncovering Writing

My rating: 5 of 5 stars

Matthew Arnold’s “On Translating Homer” was a very enjoyable set of three lectures on what he considers the important aspects of a good translation of Homer as well as his thoughts on various translations that were available by 1861. These lectures are infamous for his fierce attack on Francis Newman’s translation of Homer. While Arnold pulled no punches, his analysis is very good, in my opinion. Newman’s translation was very poor and awkward. He also offers critical, yet well thought out, analyses of several other translations, including those by Cowper, Pope and Chapman.

Arnold lays out four items necessary for a good translation. It must be eminently rapid, plain and direct in syntax and words, plain and direct in substance of thought (i.e. in manner and ideas) and noble.

He says that Milton is wonderful but slow and full of pauses and consciousness. Homer is more direct and flowing. Arnold suggests that Cowper followed Milton’s style in his translation of Homer and severely slowed his translations flow and pacing. Pope’s translation added too much extra flourish, but his pacing was very rapid (p. 14). Arnold says that rhyme is not necessarily evil, but that it can be misused. He suggests Chapman had wonderful rhyming, but it linked sections that shouldn’t have been linked (e.g. bridging two divergent lines of thought, but ones that needed to be linked to keep the rhyme scheme in place). Further on Chapman, Arnold says that while he is plain spoken, fresh, vigorous and rapid, his Elizabethan mindset was too active, too complex than the original Homer was (p. 26-28). Chapman goes overboard, embellishing and adding things that just aren’t there.

In his second lecture, among other things, Arnold says that translation must reproduce the “general effect” of the original (p. 31). He suggests that the ballad-style is not suitable to Homer.

In his third lecture, he tries to evaluate the four translations of Cowper, Pope, Chapman and Newman. He also suggests that hexameter is the best choice for translating Homer. I do not agree as it seems somewhat forced in three long translations that Arnold does on his own.

My favorite translation of Homer so far was the Earl of Derby’s which came out a few years after these lectures. I’d like to know what Arnold thought of that one, but haven’t come across any clues yet.

The Iliad by Homer

My rating: 5 of 5 stars

This is my third time reading Homer’s Iliad. I read Robert Fitzgerald’s translation in college. In 2008, after reading his rendition of the Odyssey, I turned to Robert Fagles. This time, I read a much older version, done by Edward Smith-Stanley, the 14th Earl of Derby. He published his work in 1864. He was also a UK prime minster, serving three, non-consecutive terms. He studied at Eton and Oxford before venturing into politics. I wish he’d stuck with classics and published an edition of the Odyssey.

I didn’t like the Iliad the first time I read it; however, Derby’s translation blew me away. It read so much faster than Fitzgerald’s, yet kept close to Homer’s original intent, as far as I can tell from reading multiple translations and studying a bit of Homeric Greek. Fitzgerald’s translation was good, but it seemed stilted in its word choice and the pacing stuttered at times. Fagles seemed to write his own interpretation of the story, rather than translate it (like Pope did with his version of the Odyssey).

As an example, see the various sections that describe Achilles’s new shield in Book 18 of the Iliad. It just sounds so much better in this translation than in Fitzgerald’s or Fagles’s versions.

When I read Fagles’s version, I gave the book only two stars. After finishing this one, I gave it five stars. I savored each book (chapter) and truly was sad as I neared the end. I wish the 14th Earl of Derby had translate the Odyssey so I could turn next to that.

For more on the Iliad and its translators, see this excellent article from the Chronicle of Higher Education: m.chronicle.com/article/a…

Having just finished reading Robert Fagles’s translation of the Iliad, I remember why I’ve only read it twice before. During college, I twice read Robert Fitzgerald’s translation. His stilted language made a difficult book almost impenetrable. Even with the mastery of prose and poetry that Fagles brings, I don’t believe this work can be saved. The back cover of Fagles’s translation bills it as the world’s greatest war story. I do protest that and let me approach that in two parts.

Greatest story? It is slow and plodding, even though it starts crisply and ends wisely. The intervening books of slaughter and cataloging, while attempting to show the scale and scope of the Trojan battle, fail to keep me engaged. This epic could have been 1/4 the size, perhaps less. The book opens with “Rage– Goddess, sing the rage of Peleus' son Achilles…” However, after a brief display of his hubris and childish behavior, we barely see him in the next 16 chapters. The highlight of the story is the final chapter, where King Priam comes to the Greek camp to petition Achilles for the body of the King’s son, Hector. In this short section, humanity wells to the top, in the actions of Priam and partially with Achilles.

As for the Iliad being the greatest war story, the depiction of battles have been sanitized and glorified. Death is vicious, but quick; horrible, yet honorable; driven by gods, not chosen by men. War is seen as a means to an end, and that end is revenge or greed. If one wants to read a great war story, turn to Erich Maria Remarque’s All Quiet on the Western Front. That takes off the rose-colored glasses and adds chop to the wine dark seas.

If one is to read Homer, and I think one should, turn to the Odyssey, especially Fagles’s translation of it. There is a book that is the height of epic poetry. It is a good story, well-told, that bears many lessons for yesterday, today and tomorrow. As I’ve said in the past, the key to life is the journey itself, not the battles or end result.

Epilogue: Sadly, Robert Fagles has left us, so we must engage with him now through his works. And even though I didn’t enjoy the tale of the rage of Achilles, Fagles’s telling is phenomenal and without parallel.