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.
