>When Alexander Pope's majestic translation of Homer's Odyssey appeared in 1726, his translation of the Iliad had already been acclaimed by Samuel Johnson as "a performance which no age or nation could hope to equal."
The comparison of first lines at 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.
Each to their own, of course, but I wanted to provide a counterpoint to anyone out there deciding on a translation to read.
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.
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.
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.
"Luther made the Bible and you have made Homer speak German. This is the greatest gift that can be given to a people; for a people remains barbaric and fails to see the excellence it knows as its own true property as long as it does not come to know it in its own language. If you want to forget these two examples, I still want to say of my own efforts that I will try to teach philosophy to speak German. If it ultimately comes to do that, then it will be infinitely more difficult to give triviality the appearance of profound speech".
- Hegel, ‘Letter to Johann Heinrich Voss’, 1805.
Hah, talk about irony.
(Personally, I find that I always seem to have a special place in my heart for my first translation of something -- for me, nobody beats Richmond Lattimore. But I'm more nostalgic than most.)
This is the literary equivalent of claiming 640K should be enough for anybody.
Often attributed (erroneously) to Kenneth Olsen, founder of Digital Equipment Corporation (DEC).
Source investigation: https://quoteinvestigator.com/2017/09/14/home-computer/
Bach is no lesser than deadmau5 because deadmau5 composes 300 years later. But technology from 300 years before is by definition less advanced than todays...
What was pleasant to read text 300 years ago is unpleasant hard to read text. What was normal word 300 years ago is unusual rare word now. What is even worst, the same word now can mean something completely different.
It is more like technology then music in this regard.
Agree with the rest of what you say but take issue with “ceases to be good”, since, even with translations, determining what is “good” about a piece of literature is complicated and often more about the process than the outcome.
For example some translation which still has a lot of artistic merit or historical importance, but, as you said, is now dated and difficult to read because the language has changed so much since when the translation was written.
I’d argue it doesn’t make sense to call that translation “bad”. “Bad for an undergraduate”, or “bad as a first translation to read, or “bad at X”, some specific thing, but overall bad? Personally I’d argue now.
Also for what it’s worth even if the science behind music doesn’t change, music itself - how we hear it and our culture for it - kinda does.
For example, lots of sounds / music that used to be considered unbearable noise is now widely accepted and popular. Looking at the changes in western popular music in the 20th century is a great example of this.
But —- I agree with you that language and music (and art) are all sort of their own kinds of technologies!
There are materials and techniques and functions and so on. The technology / art divide is much blurrier than is often appreciated. :)