The Claudyssey: A line-for-line translation of Homer's Odyssey by Claude Fable 5
theclaudyssey.com
theclaudyssey.com
I do value the work of human translators; when they're really in harmony with the original work, they can be fantastic. But they can also be disastrous, like Alfred Birnbaum's translations of Murakami, which radically reshapes the protagonist and threw out nearly 20% of the original work.
This is basically an anti-AI author or lawyer's dream case.
And, seeing this uncanny-valley-of-slop output, I kind of hope they go for it.
The first line is a crappy mishmash of Lattimore and Fagles.
Lattimore: >Tell me, Muse, of the man of many ways, who was driven far journeys, after he had sacked Troy's sacred citadel.
Fagles: >Sing to me of the man, Muse, the man of twists and turns driven time and again off course, once he had plundered the hallowed heights of Troy.
Claude: >Tell me the man, Muse — the man of many turnings, who was driven wandering far, once he had sacked Troy's holy citadel
Combining "man of many ways" and "man of twists and turns" into "man of many turnings" is just dreck.
I find that Fagles is very majestic -wonderful, really- but he's also very liberal (poetically) and definitely did not limit himself to the same number of lines as Homer as this project did.
Ok, but this clearly combines a few translations line by line if you work through it.
FWIW I gave GPT-5.5 two lines of William Cowper's translation (long out of copyright to avoid any filters) without web search and not only was it able to identify it, it was able to continue it verbatim for roughly 30 lines at which point it went off course, but only by skipping like two books ahead. If I had supplied the original text as an anchor it presumably could have kept going.
I didn't try it with Fable because I'm lazy, but all these translations (presumably the ones within copyright too, given the lawsuits) are definitely well known by these models.
…and all of its training data.
I'm not seeing, from what you quote, how this is more "mishmash" than "translation of the same underlying text as them".
As for whether it's crappy, that's a pretty subjective matter; for what little it's worth "of many turnings" doesn't seem particularly dreck-y to me; it seems in fact a rather literal rendering of "polytropos" and -- as Fable's footnote says -- one that maintains some of the ambiguity between "one whose paths have turned many ways" and "one with a twisty-turny sort of disposition". I am no scholar of ancient Greek and there's no reason why anyone should pay particular regard to my tastes on this; but what is asserted without evidence may be controverted without evidence.
(The one thing in those three lines that I would describe as dreck is "driven far journeys" which to me seems barely grammatical. "Secret" seems like a weird choice, too.)
"Tell me the man" and "of many turnings" sound far, far worse, not to mention the egregious em-dash. Obviously there's no way to really _prove_ what is good taste, but I would be quite surprised to hear you really think that Lattimore is worse than Claude here.
>"Secret" seems like a weird choice, too
This seems to be an OCR error from the source I copied online! Digging up a real copy, it's sacred rather than secret! I've since corrected this.
(I'm glad to hear that "secret" wasn't real. It seemed quite inexplicable to me.)
> ἄνδρα μοι ἔννεπε, μοῦσα, πολύτροπον, ὃς μάλα πολλὰ πλάγχθη, ἐπεὶ Τροίης ἱερὸν πτολίεθρον ἔπερσεν·
man(acc.) me(dat.) tell(pres. imp.), Muse(voc.), many-turn(acc.), who(nom.) very(adv.) far(acc.) wandered(aor. 3sg. m.p., but note active sense of "to drive off"), after(adv.) Troy(acc.) holy(acc.) city(acc.) (he) sack(aor. 3sg.)
Glosses my own, text from https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg0012.t...
Vis-à-vis polytropos, I just think that "man of many-turnings" sounds god-awful, but the similarity was mostly the fact it uses the construction "man of x" like Fagles and Lattimore rather than a normal adjective like in the Greek.
> Claude repeats man twice like Fagles, despite that not being in the Greek.
This style is not unique to Fagles. In Greek poetry modifying words (polytropon, for preceding andra ...) can be in apparently insensible locations not found in prose and speech, but accepted in poetry for the sake of meter and poetic style. In Greek, this heritage makes it acceptable, and the marked cases provide redundancy that allows the very flexible poetic word order. Here, there is a choice to capture the sense putting "man" before Muse as the focus of the sentence as in the Greek, and then repeat "the man" again before "of many turnings" because it is otherwise more ambiguous to just say "of many turnings" after "Muse".
> Using driven and wandering is a weird repetition
I don't think it's negatively weird, it's a choice that tries to capture the range of senses that a Greek might associate with it.
> It also drops the "very" for no apparent reason (also not present in Fagles or Lattimore)
Lattimore doesn't really capture this. Fagles captures this by using a more expressive "time and again" for "far"/"many".
Maybe one can argue that Claude choses to reflect extremity in this by giving both "driven" and "wandering".
> once
This is a very understandable gloss that I had chosen to supply "after" instead. It is not an innovation by Fagles, but a choice Fagles from a small range of valid common choices.
> It also uses citadel rather than city
I think citadel is altogether an appropriate general translation as well. It is described as "holy", and the Greek is a Homeric "ptoliethron" that everyday Attic/Ionic speakers would consider an archaic word, where the everyday word is the "polis" that you and I are familiar with.
If your opinion is that Claude does not have a consistent editorial voice that is preferable for translation, sure I agree. If your opinion is that it translates while being aware of and perhaps taking cues from prior translations, sure I agree, with the caveat that it also sees dictionary definitions, the Homeric Greek itself, common ways Homeric is translated, and more literal glosses, and it seems to me in fact to take more influence from these (at least, just by looking at this first line). But it is difficult for me to agree that it just mashes up two prior translations.
As for the criticism of editorial voice I wonder if it can be solved by a matter of prompting with expertise.
The problem I have with Claude's version - same as Lattimore, in fact - is that it's really hard to read aloud; the rhythm just doesn't hit right. Fagles is the best for that, though I'm aware of the occasional liberties he takes to achieve a high poetic standard in English. There are 19th c and earlier translations that wander even further; I love the balance that Fagles strikes.
I've got Wilson downstairs, though I've not read it yet.
With Claude's help, I ran some tests against nine different translations including Peter Green's line-matched translation, the closest method-matched human control. 36 human-vs-human pairings as controls.
Murray (the published translation of the Greek, Loeb source) and Lattimore affinities are genuinely elevated. Fagles is modest but not totally absent. The test can't exclude 4-6-word mosaic composition, and doesn't measure interpretive influence.
The longest shared passage in the 12,107 lines is 29 words. Long-fragment assembly is strongly disfavored by synthetic-splice calibration. The translation resembles Green as much as it resembles Murray, or three times as strongly as it resembles Fagles' famous one. That strikes me as being in the opposite direction from what training data-regurgitation would predict.
https://theclaudyssey.com/independence.html
Methodological corrections welcomed
Six years ago I fed Dante's Inferno to AWS translation. It was...not good[1]. Maybe its time to try again and see how things have changed.
[1] https://github.com/ffx271/dante-inferno/blob/master/english/...
Unfortunately it's just a mix of a few existing translations. Elsewhere there's an explanation showing this line by line.
That said, I'd like to see the prompt(s) having such an effect on the subjective choices for a project like this.
However, there may be more to it than I thought. No admittedly the following is ChatGPT's opinion, but I think it's valid and made me think again:
> The second is the better translation as English poetry; the first (Claude's) is the better translation if you want to see the Greek more directly.
> If I were studying Homer, I'd strongly prefer the first. It continually reminds you that you're reading an ancient poem whose concepts don't map neatly onto modern English.
A good translation should attempt to communicate what the author meant, as closely as possible, even if there is no equivalent in the target language.
A good translation should be beautiful all on its own.
It's the balance of the 2 that makes a translation successful.
If you erase the author's true meaning just because you don't want to slow the reader down in having to take a moment to read an explanatory footnote if they're confused, you have failed to translate it, and have likely editorialized it.
Why do many English-speaking people know 'wabisabi' as a concept? Because someone bothered to explain it to them, and they bothered to listen. That act enriches the reader.
And don't even get me started on "localization".