You’re welcome to disagree with me, no problem. But is the passive aggressive side comment really necessary?
I have found that modern translations inject a “modernness” into the language that isn’t present in translations from a century or two ago. If that doesn’t bother you, then sure, pick up a recent translation.
'I have found that modern translations inject a “modernness” into the language that isn’t present in translations from a century or two ago.'
I'm completely baffled by this criticism in the context of a translation of a 7th Century BC text, particularly in terms of the notion of making the text 'accessible' to a modern reader.
If anything I'd argue that Butler's prose translation does far more violence to the original text. The idea that e.g. Lattimore is more accessible than Butler is remarkably strange to me. In particular, you mention that contemporary translations tend to avoid 'difficult' language, which is flat wrong in the context of Lattimore - his syntactic constructions, because they need to fit the poetic meter he uses, are frequently quite complex and nested. Nor is the vocabulary particularly simplified; I think Butler is much more watered-down in this regard.*
Can you elaborate on which 20th/21st century translations of Homer you are referring to?
*(That is not to say there aren't any possible criticisms to be made of Lattimore in terms of anachronism - when Helen talks about her own conduct in the Iliad, Lattimore inserts some fairly harsh 20th-century gendered insults that are, as far as I can tell, in no way attested to by the original Greek)
I have found that modern translations inject a “modernness” into the language that isn’t present in translations from a century or two ago. If that doesn’t bother you, then sure, pick up a recent translation.