On Translating Homer: Three Lectures Given at Oxford

by Matthew Arnold

Excerpt from On Translating Homer: Three Lectures Given at Oxford

Instead of moving on without check, as in reading the original, the reader twice finds himself, in read lug the translation, brought up and checked. Homer moves with the same simplicity and rapidity in the highly-wrought as in the simple passage.

About the Publisher

Forgotten Books publishes hundreds of thousands of rare and classic books. Find more at www.forgottenbooks.com

This book is a reproduction of an important historical work. Forgotten Books uses state-of-the-art technology to digitally reconstruct the work, preserving the original format whilst repairing imperfections present in the aged copy. In rare cases, an imperfection in the original, such as a blemish or missing page, may be replicated in our edition. We do, however, repair the vast majority of imperfections successfully; any imperfections that remain are intentionally left to preserve the state of such historical works.

Genres: Classics

108 pages, Hardcover

First published August 20, 2015

About the author

Poems, such as "Dover Beach" (1867), of British critic Matthew Arnold express moral and religious doubts alongside his Culture and Anarchy , a polemic of 1869 against Victorian materialism.

Matthew Arnold, an English sage writer, worked as an inspector of schools. Thomas Arnold, the famed headmaster of rugby school, fathered him and and Tom Arnold, his brother and literary professor, alongside William Delafield Arnold, novelist and colonial administrator.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew...

Reviews

[David Areyzaga · Rating 5 out of 5]

He adquirido la firme creencia de que todos deben encontrar las traducciones de La ilíada y La odisea de Homero que les correspondan, su propia zapatilla de cristal para considerar que su proyecto de lectura, tome el tiempo que tome, alcance el horizonte que alcance, tenga una base sólida. Hallé mi versión de La ilíada en Stephen Mitchell (todavía no me decido con La odisea ya que compararé su versión con la de Emily Wilson) y decidí buscar una de las lecturas que inspiró sus decisiones.

Es menester que los traductores literarios conozcan la controvertida y a veces irreverente pelea entre F.W. Newman y Matthew Arnold respecto a la traducción de La ilíada. La ilíada de Newman (con el adverbio "fielmente" para referirse a su modo de traducción) es una lectura incómoda en muchos aspectos y reto al lector común a tratar de disfrutarla de principio a fin. Esto, entre otros factores, resultó en una crítica apasionada pero honesta por parte de Arnold que dejó a Newman ofendido a tal grado que publicó una respuesta iracunda. Incluso es una pelea interesante para los estudiosos de la retórica y la argumentación que deseen ver un ejemplo claro de cómo la palabra final pertenece al que no pelea con base en falacias.

En sí, el inglés y Homero tienen una relación complicada. Ya que el inglés es un idioma territorial y hay una profunda fascinación por Homero entre los literatos que ha durado generaciones, es de esperarse que haya intento tras intento de crear "LA" traducción de Homero que se imponga sobre las demás, cada vez con más herramientas para defenderla como la autoridad. Este pleito ha durado hasta la fecha y ahora el enfoque está más en las cualidades del traductor que en la traducción en sí para determinar si una nueva entrada vale siquiera una revisada. Es un pleito generacional a la "dick-measuring" que han ocupado traductores y críticos literarios. Cabe destacar que hasta los últimos años había sido un pleito de hombres; dos mujeres entraron al quite al menos en el panorama del inglés: Emily Wilson con su traducción de La odisea y Caroline Alexander con sus traducción de La ilíada (de estas solo me interesa leer la de Emily Wilson ya que Caroline Alexander parece suscribirse todavía a ideas parecidas a las de Newman con su preservación de los epítetos del texto griego y no aporta algo de su perspectiva que en verdad cambie el panorama o lo reimagine a diferencia de Wilson).

Y este pleito es natural ya que la traducción es una disciplina de reacciones. Cada teoría, cada propuesta es una reacción a lo que se practicaba antes y no siempre se desplaza por las razones adecuadas. Si bien los traductores deben perseguir el siguiente paso no debe ser para huir del pasado; de igual forma, los traductores no deben apegarse al pasado por miedo a lo que el presente les ofrece. Pero la distinción entre progreso y escape, afición y respeto, es complicada y eso le aporta dinamismo a nuestro trabajo. A veces daremos un paso en la dirección correcta y a veces dos pasos atrás. Por eso, traducir u observar la traducción de clásicos será una ejercicio permanente (y deseable) entre los traductores y el público ya que ahí se puede apreciar como una gran línea del tiempo nuestra historia pobremente documentada. Contra documentos que relaten nuestra historia, mejor tenemos un tapiz de casi 100 traducciones al inglés de La ilíada para formar algunas conclusiones sanas.

¿Cuál es la consecuencia? Esta serie de ensayos de Matthew Arnold sobre la traducción de los textos de Homero que, aunque enfurecieron a Newman, a nosotros pueden ofrecernos mucho sobre la traducción de Homero y de cualquier autor si extrapolamos ciertos principios.

A lo largo de la lectura, claro que se reirán con los ataques al trabajo de Newman ya que no solo están bien fundamentados pero es tal la pasión de Arnold que es inevitable que se le escape un poco de humor en su ataque pero es importante que no veamos esto como un ataque deliberado. El propósito de Arnold es, antes que todo, que otros traductores sepan qué hacer y qué no hacer si eligen escuchar sus recomendaciones y la crítica que ofrece no solo de cuatro traducciones distintas, sino de la poesía de Homero y sus cualidades.

La crítica de Arnold es respetuosa y sus consejos pueden apreciarse claramente en la traducción que Stephen Mitchell hizo (no de manera servil, sino tomando lo que consideró útil y también tomando sus propias decisiones como otro crítico de igual estatura que sus predecesores). Este respeto que a veces su pasión nubla llevó a una respuesta tan agresiva por parte de Newman que Arnold ofreció unas últimas palabras al respecto y vienen por fortuna incluídas en este compendio.

Son las últimas palabras, considero, la parte más importante de esto ya que ahí clarifica algunos de sus argumentos más vagos (como la noción de un "gran estilo", la diferencia entre simplicidad y simpleza, así como el concepto de nobleza) y—tal vez con sarcasmo—hace énfasis en que su ataque no es para destruir a Newman (aunque no resiste la tentación de decir que el trabajo de Newman nos sirve para ver precisamente un error colosal en la traducción de Homero para que podamos estudiarla de esa forma), sino para informar a futuros traductores de la bifurcación en la que nos encontramos con frecuencia: darle preferencia a la poesía o a la filología.

¿Y cuál es el camino correcto? Cada traductor decidirá por su cuenta pero si quieren saber el mío, aconsejo leer la versión de Stephen Mitchell (también muero por leer la versión de Stanley Lombardo), que lean este trabajo de Arnold y que lean "Las versiones homéricas" de Jorge Luis Borges. Ahí verán mi preferencia.

Y si no, nada más lean a Matthew Arnold por ser una voz académica entretenida, inteligente, apasionada y sin el mal de la autocensura. Eso es algo difícil de encontrar en especial hoy en día. Tal vez si más lo leyeran, tendríamos más ganas de progresar.

[Mac · Rating 5 out of 5]

In this book (really a collection of three lectures from 1860 with a long epilogue responding to his critics) Matthew Arnold discusses the challenge of translating Homer into English. He is reacting in particular to a recent translation of the Iliad by one F.W. Newman, but Arnold eloquently illustrates some of the problems with translation in general. One can render the words as literally as possible and yet totally miss the rhythm and feeling of the original language.

Arnold identifies the essential qualities of Homer's work: "that he is eminently rapid; that he is eminently plain and direct both in the evolution of his thought and in the expression of it, that is, both in his syntax and in his words; that he is eminently plain and direct in the substance of his thought, that is, in his matter and ideas; and, finally, that he is eminently noble." Using illustrations from Newman's translation as well as famous earlier attempts by George Chapman and Alexander Pope, among others, Arnold shows how he thinks they fall short in one or more of these essential qualities. His third lecture culminates in his attempts to create a satisfactory translation of a few scenes of the Iliad.

Though Arnold at times works directly with the Greek, most of this book would be of interest to anyone who has pondered (let alone attempted) the art of translation. His criticisms of Newman and the others are occasionally hilarious in an understated British way. And even if you don't find Arnold's own translations completely convincing, you will have been provoked to think more about what goes into a good translation.

[Drew · Rating 4 out of 5]

Unlike Francis Newman’s screed, Matthew Arnold’s final essay on translating Homer, written in part as a response to Newman, is a calm, well-considered and organized lecture. In 69 pages, he responds to the larger claims of Newman as well as expounding further on advice for future translators of Homer, and translation in general.

I enjoyed his discussion of simplicité vs. simplesse (natural vs. artificial simplicity) As an illustration, he compares Wordsworth’s Michael and Tennyson’s Dora. But, Arnold does suggest that Walter Scott’s Lay of the Last Minstrel is wanting, especially the beginning of the 6th canto, which I adore. Now, granted, I adore this for reasons that might be different than Scott’s intention (his was mostly about nationalism and love of one’s native land).

Overall, this was a good read but if you had to pick one book on translating Homer, I’d suggest Arnold’s first set of three lectures. They can stand alone and they give great guidance.

[Preetam Chatterjee · Rating 4 out of 5]

In this tome Arnold applies himself to the actual appreciation of actual literature. Arnold makes a study of existing translations of Homer, with a view to giving advice for future translations. Homer's poetry, says Arnold, had four chief qualities: 1) It had fluid speediness of movement, 2) its style was humble, 3) there was a simplicity of thought, and 4) there was a graciousness in it. Cowper's translation is not able to do justice to the swiftness of movement. Pope's manner is too fake to do justice to the indispensable simplicity of Homer's poetry. Chapman's translation replaces Homer's purity of thought with Elizabethan whimsicality. None of these translations have been able to bring out all the indispensable qualities of Homer's poetry in their translation. The nastiest translation, according to Arnold, is the one made by Francis W. Newman. This translation showed ridiculous and fantastic diction. There is an unconventionality in it, which is the "great defect of English intellect, the great blemish of English literature. It is in the course of these lectures that Arnold elaborates on the "grand style" and illustrates it with concrete example from Homer, Virgil, Dante and Milton. The majestic style "arises in poetry, when a noble nature, poetically gifted, treats with minimalism or with severity a serious subject. This statement has aroused great controversy.

[Michael Vawser]

Biblio.com US$4.69

[Drew · Rating 5 out of 5]

Matthew Arnold’s “On Translating Homer” was a very enjoyable set of three lectures on what he considers the important aspects of a good translation of Homer as well as his thoughts on various translations that were available by 1861. These lectures are infamous for his fierce attack on Francis Newman’s translation of Homer. While Arnold pulled no punches, his analysis is very good, in my opinion. Newman’s translation was very poor and awkward. He also offers critical, yet well thought out, analyses of several other translations, including those by Cowper, Pope and Chapman.

Arnold lays out four items necessary for a good translation. It must be eminently rapid, plain and direct in syntax and words, plain and direct in substance of thought (i.e. in manner and ideas) and noble.

He says that Milton is wonderful but slow and full of pauses and consciousness. Homer is more direct and flowing. Arnold suggests that Cowper followed Milton’s style in his translation of Homer and severely slowed his translations flow and pacing. Pope’s translation added too much extra flourish, but his pacing was very rapid (p. 14). Arnold says that rhyme is not necessarily evil, but that it can be misused. He suggests Chapman had wonderful rhyming, but it linked sections that shouldn’t have been linked (e.g. bridging two divergent lines of thought, but ones that needed to be linked to keep the rhyme scheme in place). Further on Chapman, Arnold says that while he is plain spoken, fresh, vigorous and rapid, his Elizabethan mindset was too active, too complex than the original Homer was (p. 26-28). Chapman goes overboard, embellishing and adding things that just aren’t there.

In his second lecture, among other things, Arnold says that translation must reproduce the “general effect” of the original (p. 31). He suggests that the ballad-style is not suitable to Homer.

In his third lecture, he tries to evaluate the four translations of Cowper, Pope, Chapman and Newman. He also suggests that hexameter is the best choice for translating Homer. I do not agree as it seems somewhat forced in three long translations that Arnold does on his own.

My favorite translation of Homer so far was the Earl of Derby’s which came out a few years after these lectures. I’d like to know what Arnold thought of that one, but haven’t come across any clues yet.