# Reading > General Literature >  Alexander Pope vs Robert Fagles .....

## dfloyd

I first read the Iliad and the Odyssey in the clasical verse translation by Alexander Pope. Recently, I have read the Robert Fagles free verse translation. I enjoyed both the 18th century and the Fagles translation of these epic poems. What do you who have read both think of their merits and which do you prefer?

----------


## mal4mac

I gave up on Fagles, to my ears he sounded like Shakespeare gone bad. Peter French has commented that all translations of these classics are 'plodding'. Eventually I managed to plod through Rieu's prose versions, which are (at least!) clear and straightforward. French recommends IA Richards abridged Iliad, and Picard's children's versions of both classics. I will probably be turning to these if I re-read.

Did you find your reading of these classics enjoyable without caveat? As enjoyable as reading Shakespeare? I only found parts of them enjoyable. That, and the inferior translated poetry (or workmanlike prose), made them not an experience I want to repeat. How can you enjoy the repetition and 'the catalogue of ships'? How can you enjoy the plodding translations?

I compared a few hundred lines of Lombardo's translation with Fagles and much preferred it. He is much more straightforward and concise - although (again) rather plodding. Has anyone read Lombardo's "Essential Homer"? (A combined abridgement of both classics) Does it cut out the boring bits but leave the good bits?

----------


## stlukesguild

Has anyone read Lombardo's "Essential Homer"? (A combined abridgement of both classics) Does it cut out the boring bits but leave the good bits?

Accck! Why not just read the cliff notes and just be done with it? :Rolleyes:

----------


## dfloyd

I read by you. Instead you go off on a tangent, expressing your own views and obviously feeling that your views are far superior to others. First, it is obvious you have never read Pope's translation since you expressly ignore it. As far as being boring with repetitivenes, you forget that Homer's audience was oral, and the repeating of phrases was part of the oral pesentation. This is analogous to Poe's alliteration in The Bells and The Raven, both of which are more effective orally than read.

I always advise prospective Iliad readers to skip Book Two, on the mustering of ths ships, on their first read. The ancient Greeks Knew all the heroes and their geneology so they didn't find it boring. I find neither poem in disgrace and would never advise anyone to read an abridged or children's version.

I find your constant allusions to critics to be supercilious, and your postings, which do not answer questions asked, to be boring. Much more boring than reading Homer.

----------


## fracacon

Same from me.
I am happy to recieve PMs but not if they are merely questions that can go on the forum.
So if you are going to pm me, you had better make it really personal..... ? ? ? ? 
__________________
Comparatif pret immobilier simulation en ligne | Calcul credit immobilier simulateur gratuit - Demande pret simulation immo

----------


## Nemo Neem

I prefer the Fagles translation, but love Pope as a poet.

----------


## mal4mac

> Accck! Why not just read the cliff notes and just be done with it?


Cliff Notes tends to be very tedious, and I don't want to read boring tips on passing exams. 

Alberto Manguel's "The Iliad and the Odyssey" has an excellent short summary of the action in the epics, I may just re-read that, if I feel I need an update on the facts (if, say, reading Joyce.) On the other hand, I really enjoyed reading IA Richards Principle of Criticism so I'm tempted to sample his Iliad and see how his 'psychological impulse' theory of criticism influences his translation.

----------


## mal4mac

> ... you go off on a tangent, expressing your own views and obviously feeling that your views are far superior to others.


I like going off on tangents  :Smile:  Aren't forums for expressing one's own views? How do you obtain the ability to "obviously" know others feelings?




> First, it is obvious you have never read Pope's translation since you expressly ignore it.


I've read bits of it, but I felt like going off on a tangent...




> As far as being boring with repetitivenes, you forget that Homer's audience was oral, and the repeating of phrases was part of the oral pesentation...


I didn't forget this, but I was only interested in my experience of reading the Iliad, and wondering how it might be made better - without me turning into an editor!




> I always advise prospective Iliad readers to skip Book Two, on the mustering of ths ships, on their first read. The ancient Greeks Knew all the heroes and their geneology so they didn't find it boring. I find neither poem in disgrace and would never advise anyone to read an abridged or children's version.


Why such a purist view? Note, the advice on what to read isn't mine, it comes form the Oxford Guide to Literature in English Translation. Your advice to skip book two seems good to me. But aren't you in danger of contradicting yourself? Advising people to skip a chapter is encouraging them to abridge the work. 




> I find your constant allusions to critics to be supercilious, and your postings, which do not answer questions asked, to be boring. Much more boring than reading Homer.


Ho hum. I find tangents inteersting. You find them boring. Not a marriage made in heaven. Now who said that?

----------


## htvngoc2010

> Cliff Notes tends to be very tedious, and I don't want to read boring tips on passing exams. 
> 
> Alberto Manguel's "The Iliad and the Odyssey" has an excellent short summary of the action in the epics, I may just re-read that, if I feel I need an update on the facts (if, say, reading Joyce.) On the other hand, I really enjoyed reading IA Richards Principle of Criticism so I'm tempted to sample his Iliad and see how his 'psychological impulse' theory of criticism influences his translation.


I starting to like this forum. Now if Tiger Woods can say out of trouble maybe I will get some work done.
____________________
kites for sale|kite store

----------


## stlukesguild

Seriously... I liked Robert Fitzgerald's, Alan Mandelbaum's, and Robert Fagle's translations. I can't say that I preferred one to the other... although each had its own merit. I've only read part's of Pope's Homer and I know that the criticism of it was that it was more Pope than Homer. Another interesting translation is Christopher Logue's _War Music_ which explosively translates some of the most dramatic sections of _The Iliad_... although "translation" may not be the correct term. The work is rather re-envisioned by a contemporary poet.

----------


## IceM

I preferred Fagles to Pope. I found Fagles more clear and better translated compared to Pope's. Then again, I've only read those two, but I found Fagles better.

----------


## JBI

Pope is good as Pope, but not good as Homer, Fitzgerald or Fagles are regarded as the Homer ones, I prefer Fagles since the intro by Bernard Knox is excellent. Pope's though should be read as Pope, and, in that sense, is good as poetry, though isn't good as a translation.

----------


## mortalterror

I like the Fitzgerald best, but I enjoy comparing Chapman, Fagles, Lattimore, and Pope. However, my favorite translation of Homer would have to be Pound's Canto I. http://www.poets.org/viewmedia.php/prmMID/15426

----------


## JBI

> I like the Fitzgerald best, but I enjoy comparing Chapman, Fagles, Lattimore, and Pope. However, my favorite translation of Homer would have to be Pound's Canto I. http://www.poets.org/viewmedia.php/prmMID/15426


Retranslation - he is working on something out of a Latin translation - though I am sure you are aware of that.

----------


## mal4mac

The Oxford Guide to Literature in Translation is very negative about Fitzgerald, Lattimore, and Fagles. "All of these modern versions require a good deal of effort from the reader: they present enough of the original to guess how much better Homer must be." Rieu gets a 'reasonable' review:"More tolerable to read at length... E.V. Rieu's unpretentious Penguin translations..."

I agree with "Oxford". I gave up reading Fagles' Illiad after about a hundred pages, finding it tedious, pretentious, and too much of an effort. I read chunks of many the poetic versions [not Pope! I wrongly thought "modern is best" in those days...], but wasn't impressed. Eventually, I found Rieu and read it all in reasonable comfort.

But prose translations have problems--although Rieu's translation is clear it often feels boring and repetitive. This is largely due to the nature of the original. For instance, fixed epithets abound and can seem very clunky (in prose) -- Achilles is 'swift-footed' even when seated. Speeches are repeated verbatim. In poetry this can make sense, but not in prose.

"Oxford" gives a largely glowing review to Logue's "rogue" Iliad: "although his Homer is more primitive than noble, his sense of the heroic scale and the endemic violence of the epic is revelatory."

Oxford gives high praise to Pope, beginning by saying his preface is "one of the most dazzling works of all translation criticism", and pointing out that he spent ten years of his poetic prime working on the two epics. Pope says that the translator's first loyalty is to 'Rapture and Fire' that 'carries the reader away'. So (JBI's point!) he doesn't worry as much about literal equivalence as later translators. "For the first [and last?] time, then the reader is given a translation that could be mistaken for an original work, the verses race along, uncompromised in clarity, for book after book... iambic pentameter... brings an elevated atmosphere [solving Logue's 'nobility' problem?]"

Oxford quotes several chunks of Prose's verse and [rightly I think!] heaps praise upon them.

----------


## Red-Headed

The best translation of the _Iliad_ that I have ever read is by Richmond Lattimore.

----------


## Vota

I like to compare the opening of book 3 when Paris steps out to challenge the Acheans and Menelaus causes him to shrink back. 

I looked at the Chapman version, and it was just too archaic in spelling for me to enjoy reading. I like Lattimore's translation alot. It has an epic feel to it, and it flows nicely. I own the Pope version and imho, its probably the most poetic/beautiful of the versions, from what I've seen with my limited comparisons. Robert Fagles was the first translation I read and I felt it flowed well and has a strong sense of urgency throughout, but that the style was not epic or poetic enough for my tastes.

I also have looked at Samuel Butler's version, and from what I can see he has a very straight forward prose style like Fagles, but with a more attractive feel to it.

I've only read through Fagle's translation, and read snippets of the other's, though owning the Pope and Butler translations, but intend to pick up a nice copy of Lattimore's. I'm starting to really appreciate the difference of how a translation of a classic work, or a composer's interpretation of a piece of music can dramatically change how you perceive them, and make them seem like new by giving you an alternative perspective to view/hear it. 

Here is a tiny comparison between Fagles and Pope that can be found on the NewYorker website:

Fagles
Down the Trojans came like a squall of brawling gale-winds
blasting down with the Father’s thunder, loosed on earth
and a superhuman uproar bursts as they pound the heavy seas,
the giant breakers seething, battle lines of them roaring,
shoulders rearing, exploding foam, waves in the vanguard,
waves rolling in from the rear. So on the Trojans came,
waves in the vanguard, waves from the rear, closing.

Pope
As when from gloomy clouds a whirlwind springs,
That bears Jove’s thunder on its dreadful wings,
Wide o’er the blasted fields the tempest sweeps;
Then, gather’d, settles on the hoary deeps;
The afflicted deeps tumultuous mix and roar;
The waves behind impel the waves before,
Wide rolling, foaming high, and tumbling to the shore:
Thus rank on rank, the thick battalions throng,
Chief urged on chief, and man drove man along.

----------


## ennison

Pope seems to me better in that comparison but it's only a little piece. Whether either are giving due reverence to Homer , I do not know, not having enough Greek. There are numerous choices to be made during translation of poetry or "retranslation", choices which have little bearing on how most translators of even the most image-packed prose go about their business. I say Pope is better only because Pope seems to have contributed in his translation to adding a significant new English poem which is based on Homer. My favourite translators of Homer were Ewen Maclachlan and John Maclean.

----------


## cafolini

The problem with talking about Pope is that he was an agent in charge of inserting social morality into the pagan stuff of Homer, etc. There was of course morality in the pagan world, but it was rather individual. Pope was definitely working on selling something that did not occur at all in the Greek civilization until the Romans put it there. So, I don't like discussing Pope if not in that context.

----------


## Seasider

Nobody can say Pope,Fagles,Rieu or whoever can opine that Homer is better unless they have read Homer in the original. But I may say that I prefer Pope to Fagles because I have read both. Actually of all I have read I prefer Drydens Book 6 to anyone elses

----------

