Emily Wilson Reimagined Homer
yalereview.org
yalereview.org
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.
She also explains a bit about translation process - the decisions she had to make and reasons why she picked up this or that thing.
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.
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.
That does not mean it felt turgid or unnatural to its contemporaries.
“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.
AFAIK, epic poems telling about times far away are often composed in an archaic style, e.g. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hildebrandslied>, <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nibelungenlied>; I guess Beowulf is similar.
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.
“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.
> 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.
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.
[1] https://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/englishing-the-i...
My wife was a Classics major, so we have something like three translations of each, and comparing them is night and day.
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.
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.
---
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.
https://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2018/2018.10.58
---
Edit: And here is a review in the "London Review of Books," which touches on what I said:
"This makes him sound more of a brat and much less of a would-be hero than he does in the Greek."
https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v40/n08/colin-burrow/light-t...
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".
regardless of how we feel about "victims," in the ancient world they had no sympathy at all. The thought didn't even occur to them.
You can disabuse yourself of this misconception by reading some of the works in any translation.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
As she says on the first page of her translation, "Now goddess, child of Zeus, tell the old story for our modern times."
O tempora, o mores!