Her introduction and notes on her own translation alone are worth the price of the book. It would be a really interesting short monograph on Homer's world and on the discipline of translation, if published independently. I loved her take on the Odyssey, and am in the middle of her Iliad translation now (was reading chapter 10 just a few minutes ago in fact). My emotional favorite is still Fagles, for the bombast, and I like Fitzgerald as much as this one, but her Iliad is really really admirable, and would be many people's favorite for its readability and perceptiveness about the text. Modern in approach to language, but not revisionist, and she totally understands the flavor the story should have while making it smoother and less intimidating than other translators have done.
>Her introduction and notes on her own translation alone are worth the price of the book.
I felt this way about Maria Dahvana Headley's Beowulf as well. A masterful work but the introduction taught me so much more than any English class ever did.
Her Beowulf is a work of genius. It captures the thrill of listening to a great storyteller. I've performed parts of it and it's like doing Shakespeare.
In Wilson's Odyssey (I haven't seen the new Iliad yet), the notes on translation will transform your understanding of every translation you read, and the notes on xenia (~ hospitality, but much beyond that) will transform your understanding of ancient Greek culture, including both works - I don't think you can understand the works without that knowledge.
I have the Fagels translations and found the Bernard Knox introductions excellent as well. Especially the ruminations on the possible "deep history" of the story and events depicted in the books. Overall though, The Illiad is so relentless I find it hard to read to completion.
I'm curious how Wilson's version of book 13's "the waves" [1] compares with earlier translations. There's a lot of "sound" words (both onomatopoeia and more subtle use of alliteration, patterns, or stresses) in the original Greek that translations either struggle to convey, or choose to ignore.
The other reply basically summarizes it. I'll give an example that stood out: she explains why, instead of calling Agamemnon's side Achaeans, the historically accurate term, she's going to call them Greeks, because even though that's anachronistic, it's more meaningful to the reader. That's the kind of thing some people will absolutely hate, and I think I would hate that kind of thing too, in other circumstances, but she made a good case. She also talks about the difficulty of solving for words that ancient Greek has a lot of synonyms for, and Homer uses a lot of synonyms for, but English only has one wod for: how do you do that and not have it sound repetitive? That part made me appreciate the intense labor that must have gone into every line, because I struggle with the same problem, even on the microscopic scale of an email or a hacker news comment.
I found terms like Achaeans very confusing too when I first read the Iliad (E.V. Rieu's translation). But going out of my comfort zone and learning some new context broadened my horizons.
It is one of many decisions like that. The other were the decision to match up original poem length - the translation was supposed to be line for line. And also have each line to have consistent rhythm (iambic pentameter) so that poem sounds. The argument was both of these decisions was that the original poem sounded well too and people were repeated it to each other because it sounded well and they liked it.
This has consequences - the translation is shorter then some other translations, because she cant just pile multiple adjectives in a long sentence to describe one word in the original. It also sounds good, because long descriptions of something that was short in original do change how passages come across to the reader. What was originally quick and fun becomes descriptive and slow.
Likewise, do you translate it into contemporary English or archaic one? Old texts are sometimes intentionally translated into archaic language, so that you feel like reading something old. But, when they created it originally, they used their own contemporary language and made it sound pleasant to themselves. So, do you pick old words or new words for the same thing?
Personally, I found it interesting to read about these dilemmas and about thought process itself. You may agree or disagree with the choices, but the intro made the choices more transparent.
>Likewise, do you translate it into contemporary English or archaic one? Old texts are sometimes intentionally translated into archaic language, so that you feel like reading something old. But, when they created it originally, they used their own contemporary language and made it sound pleasant to themselves. So, do you pick old words or new words for the same thing?
Something to note about Homer is that his language is archaic for the classical Greeks, it is associated with an older, mythical era, and the reason why so many of those words have standard translations is because they literally only appear in Homer one time--ἅπαξ λεγόμενα--and we only know what they mean because the Greeks knew what they meant, and the Romans learned from them, and so on and so forth. Ancient language translation is steeped in tradition, it cannot be extricated from tradition, there is never a new translation since even reading an ancient text requires such extensive textual apparatus, commentarial support, and background knowledge that you are, in effect, translating as you read it by yourself anyway. But the Illiad and the Odyssey are special in this regard, since they are repetitive by nature, many many words and lines are repeated in the text, usually to mark progression to a new part of the story (since they were originally declaimed orally from memory)--they should be repeated, or else you lose the gravity of the original.
On the other hand, the point at issue was not turgidness or unnaturalness but (emphasis mine):
“Likewise, do you translate it into contemporary English or archaic one? Old texts are sometimes intentionally translated into archaic language, so that you feel like reading something old. But, when they created it originally, they used their own contemporary language and made it sound pleasant to themselves. So, do you pick old words or new words for the same thing?”
and GPʼs point is salient and correct; to be perhaps more clear: the homeric style was already archaic when the Odyssey was composed. Moreover, it was probably intentionally and somewhat artificially made archaic, e.g. using the old inflectional suffix /‑φι(ν)/ also in the singular and not only in the plural, where it was solely used originally.
> the homeric style was already archaic when the Odyssey was composed.
No, his point was that it is archaic compared to what we call classical Greek. That is absolutely not the same as being archaic when composed. Homer is second oldest written poem. It comes from oral tradition, meaning people saying it to each other out of memory. It not using exactly same language as newer texts is to be expected.
Homer was not written to be read as a book, it was meant to be remembered and listened to. It has structure that facilitates remembering. Both turgidness and unnaturalness goes massively against this very practical need/goal (and both are translators choices).
An entirely different text that was rewritten from even older text is not an argument for anything Homer. Also, maybe as tangent, Homer is not just fights with monsters people seem to assume. That is just minor part of it. It has very long passages with very low key events where not much is happening or where characters scheme/negotiate or where only funny stuff happens. I swear to god Odysseus goes to underworld purely so that they could somehow get your favorite dead characters in. It has fun structure story wise and that did not happened by random.
The point at issue I was referring to was yours, not his. I had the passage in mind I quoted; to quote and refer more concisely and precisely perhaps:
“But, when they created it [= Iliad or Odyssey] originally, they used their own contemporary language”
No, “they” did not. The Iliadʼs and Odysseyʼs language was nobodyʼs contemporary language. Not for the 8th century, not for the 5th. It has too many archaisms and dialectisms (aiolisms). (Note: Some forms seen as aiolisms in earlier research are understood as archaisms now.)
Yes, people enjoyed it, very much. But people can enjoy something that sounds archaic and unusual, not like contemporary speech. Particularly, when it is an epic poem about older times. That is quite common. I for one enjoy that, too, YMMV.
Your point “it was meant to be remembered and listened to” is difficult to unpack: Yes, this is true both for the time before and after a Homeric poem was composed as the whole that we know, but true in a very different manner. In any case, it is no evidence against archaisms (and aiolisms).
So:
“do you translate it into contemporary English or archaic one”
Archaic would be a little bit more authentic than contemporary.
Contemporary may be a better fit for many readers today – perhaps the ease of access is paramount when the translation competes with infinitely more permanently accessible information and entertainment than there was in the 8th century BC.
On this point, I will rather believe people who did studied the issue who literally said that rather then to your claims. You enjoying archaic text has zero to do with how Homer was composed. Also, it was composed to be passed orally and only later on written.
> perhaps the ease of access is paramount when the translation competes with infinitely more permanently accessible information and entertainment than there was in the 8th century BC.
This is kind of weird argument given there older translations you don't take issue with can be quite expansive over original. Given that this particular translation has the same length as original.
What I said is the position held by historical linguists focussing on early Ancient Greek, e.g. Strunk (who wrote the paper about aeolisms that are archaisms), Leumann, Meier-Brügger (Griech. Sprachw. II W 201.2 quoting Leumann “Versetzung in eine vom Alltag ferne Atmosphäre”, II F 218.3), Wachter (who wrote the grammar accompanying the latest comprehensive Greek Ilias edition), e.g. “the epic poet used non-everyday forms”, “it is true that from the point of view of its formation, ἤμαρ is more archaic than ἡμέρη, but there is no doubt that ἡμέρη, which is attested in the whole of post-Homeric Greek, particularly in Ionic-Attic, was the current form at Homer's time.” etc.
No linguist studying early Ancient Greek thinks that the poet(s) of the Iliad and Odyssey “used their own contemporary language”.
“You enjoying archaic text has zero to do with” … indeed, so letʼs not miss the argument I actually made: one of the two reasons for your view seems to be that Homer “made it sound pleasant”, “people […] liked it”. I just wanted to convey that it is a non sequitur to induce a non-archaic, contemporary style from that, particularly in the case of an epic poem about older times. This genre usually has an archaic, non-everyday style. (Two links I had included there to parallel examples were scrubbed.)
If herein you did not mean to give a reason for your view, I am sorry for the detour.
The then remaining reason for your view seems to be that the Homeric poems were “composed to be passed orally and only later on written”. But this is also no evidence for a non-archaic, contemporary language because highly archaic poems can be transmitted orally, even for centuries (cf. the Vedic hymns).
Your wording can only mean the history of the Homeric poems, but to take a look at their prehistory: the Oral-Formulaic Theory (Parry, Lord) also does not speak against archaic, non-everyday language, on the contrary, it was developed inter alia to explain the most archaic forms in the Homeric poems.
“older translations […] can be quite expansive over original. Given that this particular translation has the same length as original.” Sorry, but this is not correct, you wrote yourself “the translation is shorter then some other translations”. Emily Wilsonʼs translation has the same number of verses, as metric translations usually have, but uses the iambic pentameter instead of the considerably longer dactylic hexameter. Note that I donʼt criticize her decision. (On the contrary, I sympathize with the view that the English iambic verse may correspond a little bit better to the Greek dactylic verse. I know, in the end, Germanic metrical language and Ancient Greek metrical language are very different anyway.)
“This is kind of weird argument given there older translations you don't take issue with” … Look, I havenʼt made and donʼt intend to make any comment about any translation at all. In particular, I donʼt take issue with Wilsonʼs translation. I just wanted to corroborate the little objection made by DiscourseFan against a tiny, understandable and innocuous misconception. I deplore that the argument has rather deteriorated since then, will not engage further and wish you well.
She explains historical and cultural context of the poem. What do we know about social expectations placed on characters in the poem, how they used the poem in practice and differences against our culture, etc.
She also explains a bit about translation process - the decisions she had to make and reasons why she picked up this or that thing.
On the topic of translation, R. F. Kuang's truly stellar Babel is an amazing read. It's fantastic! It's a fantasy novel about race and gender and unions and colonialism, and it's also about language, about translation. About how you can never be truly faithful. Do you translate a work as a stilted product of its time, or something more familiar to the modern era? To quote Kuang paraphrasing Roland Barthes (from another novel, Yellowface): "An act of translation is an act of betrayal."
Slightly off topic, but I couldn't get through Homer. It feels too long and drawn out. I felt guilty for not finishing Homer, but I was pulled into Virgil's Aeneid instead and couldn't put that down.
Which translation were you reading? It makes a huge difference. Wilson's Odyssey is really easy to pick up (and I assume her Iliad will be as well), But there are a lot of translations that try to be too literal and end up not working well in English.
My wife was a Classics major, so we have something like three translations of each, and comparing them is night and day.
I was keeping it consistent across the translators and went with Fagel for both Homer and Virgil. Perhaps the translation style changed from Home to Virgil? I'm not sure, but Virgil spoke to me.
The author did a bit of "reimagining" with her translation of "The Odyssey" as well, which I own and was very excited about at the time I acquired it. In fact, I bought the book, walked a few blocks, and attended a lecture she gave at Vassar College. I was on board with her lecture, but disappointed once I began to delve into her translation.
She has a wonderful ear, and her translation of "The Odyssey" is a pleasure to read. Unfortunately though, in my opinion, she had a bit of an agenda. Part of it she detailed at the lecture, and I found that part admirable. She said that previous (male) translators had interpolated their own editorializing: specifically, adding little misogynistic characterizations that are not found in the homeric text. She, unsurprisingly, steered clear of all that, and to hear her tell it restored Homer.
But when I began to read her translation, and then compared passages to the ancient Greek, I found that she gave her own characterizations to both Odysseus and his son, Telemachus, which were neither in Homer nor particularly flattering.
Disclosure: I don't read ancient Greek. But her translation is a line-by-line translation, so it is possible to find the exact line, use scholarly online translators of Homer, and see how a particular passage, or adjective (or whatever) translates literally.
In taking a close look, I saw that she availed herself to diminishing both Odysseus and Telemachus. I'm not the only one to notice this. Moreover, she interpolated sympathy for "victims" where there really isn't any in Homer: to wit, the servant women strung up at the end.
It made me very sad to see this, because she was an intelligent and compelling lecturer; and, as I said, her verse reads beautifully. But, she's not exactly a reliable translator.
> Disclosure: I don't read ancient Greek. But her translation is a line-by-line translation, so it is possible to find the exact line, use scholarly online translators of Homer, and see how a particular passage, or adjective (or whatever) translates literally.
Is that a reliable way to establish the original meaning of the text, though? Literal translations of idiomatic texts are often less "true" than a subjective interpretation. The translator's job is insanely difficult, likely impossible.
I appreciate you asking. I'm going by memory from several years ago, but if the Greek word used to describe Telemachus means something like "presence of mind," to hint at the boy growing up to be a man worthy of such a father, and then the translated words chosen are things like "whined" and so forth, you tell me.
---
Edit: Here is an essay in the "Bryn Mawr Classical Review," which touches on the issue of the slave girls killed at the end. Look for the paragraph that begins:
"This brings me to the episode often discussed by Wilson, the killing of the slaves in Odyssey 22."
This particular essay doesn't touch on what I've said about Odysseus and Telemachus, but it does touch on the fact that her own opinion of things influences the translation.
>but if the Greek word used to describe Telemachus means something like "presence of mind," to hint at the boy growing up to be a man worthy of such a father, and then the translated words chosen are things like "whined" and so forth, you tell me.
The word used for Telemachus could be translated as "prudent" and "judicious". In the way it was perceived for what a kid should be growing up in the times, we could also call it "well rounded".
Of different ways to evaluate translation, whether or not the translator had an agenda against the protagonist of the work they’re translating is a strange criticism. Personally, I became a fan of Wilson after reading her Euripides, I think it was Trojan women or something. I didn’t know why, but I just really enjoyed reading it. I think her popularity is that she makes the poetry come alive. I don’t know if style is the right word but something like that. Translation is always a set of compromises. Better to have more translations, and for translations to be varied in their goals and methods. Her translations make reading enjoyable for me. She wouldn’t be the translation I would choose for other purposes, but to sit down and enjoy the reading, I like her a lot.
My observation is that when it comes to this particular translation, people come out of their way to get offended on behalf of main characters over completely minor decisions.
For the record, overall they come across very well. They are interesting. They make sense. They act consistent with situations they are in. They do not get criticized or insulted, nothing like that. But there is this weird assumption from some people that if they do not come like totally perfect alpha heroes in every single subtle situation, it is an ideological agenda against the guys.
Well, if it’s not good then who cares. If it is good, but subversive for lack of a better term, then that strikes me as worthy. Most work done in that spirit is bad because it’s low quality, not just because it’s agenda driven. I’m all for quality over purity, if it gets more people to read and enjoy.
It is not subversive and I did not said it is subversive.
I said people go out of their way to act offended. And very often worh fascinating caveats like "I did not read it" or with "I don't understand original but Google translator of characters name is something nice therefore every single word must be super flattering." And then get offended over passages that are flattering, but I guess not enough.
I don't think it's a strange criticism. As a reader, I shouldn't have to worry about the translator having some kind of weird resentment towards characters in the text.
They were human beings, essentially biologically identical to us, and felt compassion - a universal human emotion and an evolutionary advantage and necessity.
What basis is there for the idea that they were sociopaths? Plenty of ancient literature is concerned with these things. Plenty of modern literature overlooks it - play most computer games, for example.
One of the most striking things about ancient Greek and Roman literature is how dehumanising it is about slaves, especially when slaves were regarded en masse, as a class, and not as individual human beings. In those societies, slaves could and were regularly beaten, raped, or killed with impunity. Compassion is indeed a perennial human emotion, and it must have existed because some slaves were set free (though even here this could have been due to a master’s fondness for a slave that arose out of e.g. sexual exploitation of the latter). Yet at the same time, mass killings of slaves in ancient literature – and this is something depicted on a number of occasions – do not feature the same poignancy as modern Western readers would expect.
> In those societies, slaves could and were regularly beaten, raped, or killed with impunity
What is the basis for that? I read it as the imagination of the contemporary reactionary movement - the idea that a sort of sociopathology is a normal human condition, and compassion about others and a belief in their rights is a fake contrivance (of liberalism). But the evidence points strongly the other way. Still, there is plenty I don't know about the ancient Greek and Roman literature.
See, for example, Kyle Harper’s Slavery in the Late Roman World, AD 275–425, Cambridge University Press, 2011. In spite of the title, it contains much detail on Roman slavery in previous eras, and is one of the most accessible (to an educated readership) presentations of the phenomenon.
Thank you! A commenter who actually knows a bit of what they are saying! I will take a look at it.
From my knowledge of other such situations, enslaved people have many fewer rights, customary and legal, but not none. Humans will still be sickened by seeing other humans do bad things; there are limits. Also, they want the enslaved people to be pacified and cooperative, not murderous and angry.
"they" : we're talking about the literature that's survived. Where killing all the men and selling the women & children into slavery after capturing a city was standard practice.
Please cite some of the "Plenty of ancient literature is concerned with these things."
The word "sociopath" gives you away. Nearly every ancient hero could be thus described.
