Editors Preface on Richmond Lattimores Translation of Homers Illiad - Essay Example

College: Editor’s Preface on Richmond Lattimore’s Translation of Homer’s Illiad Biography Richmond Lattimore was born on May 6 1906 in Paotingfu, China, to David and Margaret Lattimore. David had moved with his family to China in 1901 after receiving an invitation to work as a language professor for the Chinese government. In 1920, Dartmouth College in the U.S. offered David a position as a language professor, and the Lattimores returned to the U.S. Richmond enrolled at the same college, from which he graduated in 1926. Lattimore made his first publication in 1924, in the college’s monthly, the Bema. This publication was a short story titled “Gueth”. In the same year, Richmond published his first poems in the Bema. In 1925, several of his poems appeared in the American Periodical The Bookman and a Mexican poetry magazine known as the Palms (Kamen, brynmawr.edu). He went on to complete a Rhodes scholarship at Oxford University, and earned his PhD in 1934 from the University of Illinois. Richmond began his career as a philologist in 1935 when he joined the faculty of Bryn Mawr College. In the next few years, he produced several publications and translations, among the most distinguished being “Herodotus and Names of Egyptian Gods”, published in 1939 in Classical Philosophy. He also developed his first book from his dissertation entitled Themes in Greek and Latin Epitaphs, which was a distinguished chrestomathy of inscriptions discovered in ancient tombs. Richmond Lattimore temporarily cut short his career when he went to war in 1934 as an officer in the U.S. Navy. Upon returning from duty, he served as a lecturer for a short period at the University of Chicago and Columbia University in 1947 and 1948 respectively, before returning to Bryn Mawr College as a professor in Greek. He continued to publish on various Classical issues, including the translations of Aeschylus, Homer, and Virgil for the volume War and the Poet. His translation on The Illiad appeared in 1951 and became an instant hit in literary circles. Many scholars regard Richmond’s translation of the Illiad as the finest English translation of the ancient Greek tale (Kamen, brynmawr.edu). Richmond’s translation of Homer’s Illiad is a six-beat line-for-line rendering encompassing a flexible number of syllables. It is quite a literal translation since it accounts for almost every word in the original Greek text. This feature has made it the most accurate and reliable translations of the Illiad and, therefore, most universities have adopted it as a standard text in their curricula. Upon publication, Richmond’s translation was highly welcome in literary circles because it was the first complete translation of the Illiad in hexameters. The last translation in hexameters before Richmond’s appeared in 1945, and it incorporated a lot of prose. Therefore, it was not very literal. Henry Dart’s was the previous most fluent translation, but it still had a lot of shortcomings because it employed a lot of Dart’s own poetical language. Therefore, it was not very accurate. Richmond Lattimore’s translation received significant recognition upon publication in 1951, due to its appropriateness for use as standard text in university curricula. However, individuals seeking to read the Illiad for leisure could not find an enjoyable read in Lattimore’s translation. Robert Fitzgerald’s translation, published in 1962, served this purpose better (Postlethwaite, 16). Form Richmond Lattimore’s translation is in contemporary prose unlike the original text which is in poetical verse. However, Lattimore’s translation is also a line-for-line hexameter. Lattimore’s aim of producing a six-beat line-for-line translation was to give a rendering of the Illiad, that projects the meaning of the Greek text in a rhythm and speed that quite matches the speed and rhythm of the original Greek text. Therefore, he decided to settle on the six-beat line meter which would serve this purpose best. However, Richmond Lattimore asserts that his line does not qualify to be regarded as an English hexameter and points out that even Longfellow’s and Smith-Miller’s translations of the Illiad are more regular than his. In addition, Richmond’s translation does not conform to any quantitative theory or any theory whatsoever so as to avoid bias. He came to this decision after studying Robert Bridge’s translation of part of the Aeneid, and observing the detrimental effects the use of quantitative theory had on the overall conveyance of the meaning. Another notable feature of Lattimore’s translation is the use of anapests for dactyls, and the use of trochees and iambs for spondees. He took this measure so as to make the line readable in its natural stress and, therefore, avoid forcing it into any standard system (Lattimore, 36). Lattimore also took into account Mathew Arnold’s assertion regarding the qualities of Homer that a translator must embrace in order to produce a rendering that is just as accurate, and portrays the meaning in a manner similar to that of the original. These qualities are: the translator must be rapid, noble, direct and forthright in substance, and plain and direct in expression and thought. Most scholars agree that Homer bears these qualities. Lattimore reproduced only three of these four qualities. He did not reproduce the quality of nobility because he believed this comes naturally in accordance with the literary prowess of the translator. It is inappropriate for a writer to judge his own work. He can only put his best efforts in carrying out the task, and let others judge whether his work is noble. Lattimore’s translation employs the language of contemporary prose so as to produce a language that is straightforward enough for literate people from all walks of life and careers to be able to read it, easily get the meaning, and appreciate its significance. Therefore, in contrast with Homer’s original work, Lattimore’s translation does not employ the use of poetical dialect, in total disregard of Mathew Arnold’s assertion that it is necessary for the translator of Illiad to employ a poetical dialect just like Homer in order to avoid losing the original meaning of the text. Furthermore, Lattimore noted that, in 1951, there was no proper poetical dialect of English, and the alternatives that were available to him include the language of the King James Version of the Bible and that of Spencer, which would deprive the text of a ‘Homeric’ effect. Lattimore avoided the use of words of his own choice ahead of words which provide an accurate translation of the Greek text. He took this measure in order to avoid mistranslation of the original text. In order to produce work of the highest quality, Lattimore used the English verse he was most familiar with; his own ‘poetical language’ which is essentially a rendition of the ordinary English language of today (Myrsiades, 176). Editor’s Remarks The following passage from Richmond Lattimore’s translation of Homer’s Illiad provides a clear insight into some of its basic features: “As things are, the Argives will take flight homeward over the wide ridges of the sea to the land of their fathers, and thus they would leave to Priam and to the Trojans Helen of Argos, to glory over, or whose sake many Achaians lost their lives in Troy far from their own native country,” (Lattimore, 80). There is evidently no use of poetical language in this passage. In addition, it is in continuous prose and not in verse. The passage that introduces Hector into the tale illustrates the use of hexameters by Lattimore; “Then stricken at heart though you be, you will be able to do nothing, when in their numbers before man-slaughtering Hector they drop and die.” (Lattimore, 65), this is a six-beat line employing the use of anapests. It serves as a good illustration of the extensive use of hexameters that Richmond Lattimore employed in his translation. Furthermore, this use of anapests in place of dactyls serves to prevent Lattimore’s translation from displaying a poetical approach in order to make it literal. Another defining feature of Lattimore’s translation was the use of trochees instead of spondees to eliminate the portrayal of a poetical rendition. The passage; “and under the lowering brows his eyes were glittering, the helm on his temples was shaken and thundered horribly to the fighting of Hektor.” (Kahane and Martin, 325), illustrates the effective use of trochees. Lattimore also used trochees because they fit in well with the anapestic structure he had based his translation. However, just as previous literal translations, Richmond Lattimore’s is not free of the variety of syntax that arise due to line-for-line translations. Such include obscurities and various outrages to the English language. The use of explicit vocabulary compromised clarity of some of the sentences. Therefore, it is difficult for the reader to understand the meaning of some of the words and phrases. The reader has to pause on many occasions in order to derive the meaning of a certain sentence or phrase. For example, the two sentences from Lattimore’s translation, “I, who am such as no other of the bronze-armored Achaians,” and “My mother bore me not utterly lacking in war craft,” do not make much meaningful sense (Postlethwaite, 134). The reader has to spend quite some time considering the use of the words or phrases with regard to the immediate context in order to derive the exact meaning. Another problem that arises due to Lattimore’s literal translation is a compromise of grammatical correctness. The following sample taken from a part of Achilles’ response to Odysseus demonstrates this drawback: “not if he gave me gifts as many as the sand or the dust is.” (Nikoletsea, 67). Literal translation makes this phrase clear; however, the lack of an idiom to describe an uncountable noun makes the English incorrect. Sand and dust cannot be “many” as indicated in the text. Although the aim of Lattimore was to maintain the rhythm of the hexameter, the text ends up sounding forced and awkward. However, Lattimore produced his literal translation of the Illiad mostly for the purpose of academic study in colleges and universities. It is not the best choice for enjoyable reading. The translations of Fitzgerald, Fagles, and Lombardo will provide any reader who values clear grammatically correct English in poetic translations with a better read. Works Cited Bassett, Samuel. The Poetry of Homer. Berkeley, University of California Press, 1938. Kahane, Ahuvia and Mueller, Martin. Richmond Lattimore’s Translation of Homer’s Iliad. The Chicago Homer, 2011. Retrieved 2 Dec 2012, from http://digital.library.northwestern.edu/homer/ Kamen, Deborah. Biography of Richmond Lattimore. Bryn Mawr, 2012. Retrieved 2 Dec 2012, from http://www.brynmawr.edu/classics/usefullinks.html Lattimore, Richmond. Richmond Lattimore’s Introduction: the Iliad of Homer. 1951. Retrieved 2 Dec 2012, from http://press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/9780226470498_Lattimore_intro.pdf Lattimore, Richmond. The Iliad of Homer: Translation by Richmond Lattimore. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1951. Myrsiades, Kostas. Reading Homer: Film and Text. Cranbury: Rosemont Publishing and Printing Corporation, 2009. Nikoletseas, Michael. The Iliad, Twenty Centuries of Translation: A Critical Review. New York: CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, 2012. Postlethwaite, Norman. Homer’s Iliad: A commentary on the Translation of Richmond Lattimore. Devon: University of Exeter Press, 2000. Read More