Pertinax Posted October 28, 2005 Report Share Posted October 28, 2005 A very brief note rather than a full blown review ,I have just re-read the Mark Forstater (2000) edition and the more venerable Staniforth edition in the Penguin Classics series(1964 but numerous re-prints). My observations are : the modernisation of the prose in Forstater has a very Americanised feeling to it, the forward and commentaries lean toward the "self-help" manual school of Dale Carnegie. The work is accessible but I personally find the modernity of presentation makes uncomfortable reading . Staniforth is and feels far more Anglo-saxon in tone and temper, though this does not imply that the text is eiher obscure or portentous. Staniforth seems to have a more measured tread in the prose and , I found, a less preachy tone in terms of sounding less like an improving lecture and more like a steady meditative reflection. I havent as yet got hold of Sir Derek Jacobi reading the Forstater text in audio book but I will seek it out and see if a great voice makes it more digestible. Romanists of the New World will probably be thinking along the lines of "America and Britain , two countries divided by a common language" when they read my note. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pantagathus Posted October 28, 2005 Report Share Posted October 28, 2005 Pertinax, The only one I have is the Penguin Classics version. Though, I totally understand your frustration. For me personally, I always want a translation that is the absolute truest (as possible) to the words put down by the original author. That way, one can get in the writer's head much better. I get really agitated with abridgements and/or the taking of poetic license when certain literary scholars translate an old text. If they want to put their mark on something, they should go write their own darn book... A wonderful example of translation diversity is the Odyssey. So far my absolute favorite translation is by W.H.D Rouse offered via Signet Classics. It's just a small no frills paperback but it's contents are richly exquisite. Later I wanted a nice hard bound verion of the Odyssey for the shelf (not really considering the difference translation would make) and picked up a beautiful copy (binding wise). I was so dismayed by the translation that I immediately put it back. It was so streamlined and poeticized that Homer's story lost almost all the depth in it's presentation. Homer's wit was apparently lost on that scholar. I guess that's the product of our societies ever shrinking vocabulary these days... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pertinax Posted October 28, 2005 Author Report Share Posted October 28, 2005 The loss of nuance, subtlety ,rythmn and simplicity I believe dates from the introduction of the"New English Bible" over the far superior St James version: or rather that is the signifying moment when "easy" language (ie: lazy) came to be seen as some sort of egalitarian doorway to hidden meaning and revelation. I think this is actually a total untruth and the opposite of what has occured ,the original texts (THe Vulgate for the Bible) are more obscured and made superficially facile. I have just ordered a number of texts and will give some pocket reviews of alternate translations. I would add that I am not a scholar of Christian works nor do I puport to be a commentator on religious matters. Pantagathus is to the point . English has I believe a 15,000 word vocabulary? (anyone- linguists confirm this?) what enormous subtlety! Why not use it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Primus Pilus Posted October 28, 2005 Report Share Posted October 28, 2005 Its just the style of the language and the time period which the translation occurs. While I can appreciate 'older English' including the unabridged Gibbon, reading 18th to even early 20th century translations of Latin text can get tiring. Some of it seemingly attempts to recreate the prose style that just doesn't seem to fit our language today. While our modern language can certainly be seen as boring in comparison to these older styles, at least I don't find myself distracted by now defunct terminology or 'slang' (for lack of a better word.) Personally, it just depends on my mood I suppose. Sometimes using extraneous verbage can appear contrived for the sake of appearing intellectual when simple words can paint a very clear picture. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pantagathus Posted October 28, 2005 Report Share Posted October 28, 2005 The answer to the "why not use it" question seems to find some roots in your mention of a shift to "easy language" Everything is dumbed down. Good forbid make someone have a dictionary beside them when reading a book!?! When I was in the Navy, I used to put a word of the day on the little grease pencil board in the jet engine test cell where I worked. Most of the guys thought I was a dork but I had other guys tell me after most of us got out that they really appreciated the intellectual pilot light that I kept lit for them. On the otherhand, I get so frustrated these days when people treat me as if I'm being pretentious just because I try to make use of the vocabulary I've accumulated throughout the years. They get almost offended as if I'm condescendingly talking over their heads or (much worse) as if I'm cursing them in some foreign language just because I use expanded vocabulary. We're loosing 'class' & refinement quick in today's society and Reality TV is putting us on an exponential curve at breakneck speed. All I know is that when I see a young lady that catches my eye, the word "hot" will not enter my mind as an appropriate adjective. "Salacious" however, does... Anyway Pertinax, we're obviously on the same page. Nuance and subtlety does not stem from simple language. It comes from using particularly chosen vocabulary that has no match in conveying enourmous concepts in a word verses a sentance of lazy words... While our modern language can certainly be seen as boring in comparison to these older styles, at least I don't find myself distracted by now defunct terminology or 'slang' (for lack of a better word.) Old translations using defunct slang is just as bad as a modern writer taking poetic license. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Primus Pilus Posted October 28, 2005 Report Share Posted October 28, 2005 Old translations using defunct slang is just as bad as a modern writer taking poetic license. Oh don't get me wrong... I agree with the general concept. I do however fear that over indulgence in the use of language can alienate some. I'm not talking about your example (salacious vs. 'hot') as that is a perfect substitution, but I'm sure we've all read those texts where the language is forced and doesn't feel natural. Or maybe its just me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pantagathus Posted October 28, 2005 Report Share Posted October 28, 2005 Oh don't get me wrong... I agree with the general concept. I do however fear that over indulgence in the use of language can alienate some. I'm not talking about your example (salacious vs. 'hot') as that is a perfect substitution, but I'm sure we've all read those texts where the language is forced and doesn't feel natural. Or maybe its just me. In that regard I completely agree. A perfect example of a modern writer that throws around big words and you know it wouldn't work any other way is Tom Robbins. I about fell out of my chair when (in Fierce Invilads in Hot Climates) he said the dust from a moth's wings was a "libidinous", sexual dust... A writer trying to force a big vocabulary is like stepping in an elevator with a man or woman wearing too much cologne or perfume... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pertinax Posted October 28, 2005 Author Report Share Posted October 28, 2005 I think the key here is as I hinted at earlier on, a "sparseness" of direct and truly meaningful words-I agree that some victorian translators were full of meaningless "antique" flourishes :fye..and forsooth..I jest to illustrate the point. We mentioned Rowan Atkinson elsewhere(!) if you watch him in the mock historical series Blackadder he illustrates this cod antiquity perfectly with a clever script-but then he is a highly educated man and knows and savours the use and ironic mis-use of words. Antiquity for its own sake-like the ham "Englishness" of old movies about Rome is as useless as the empty modernism cited above. There is a school of thought that modern architecture is drivel and pretentious drivel to boot: the argument being that if you do not know classical architecture you cannot possibly know how to build ie you have no alphabet so you cant spell ;the counter argument goes something like this-you can learn table manners but choose not to use them but this doesnt mean you dont know how to eat with a fork. The illogicalty in modern use is that many have only been shown how to eat with a spoon-I hold to the first part of the argument ,you must have some classical grounding-you dont have to like it ,you may well outgrow it but if you have it its in the bank and you have a fixed poinyt from which to navigate . Sorry if ive gone pedantic ! I enjoyed trying to unravel my own feelings on this topic. and im glad that people care about words so much! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pertinax Posted October 28, 2005 Author Report Share Posted October 28, 2005 Fratres! I intend that my next review will be of "Rubicon" by Tom Holland. I assume some members will have already read this book as it has been available for a while now(late June in the province of Brittania)? The Graves translation of the "Twelve Caesars" will be my next attempt at a comparison of translation style between different authors. I wil attempt a more in depth criticism than my brief notes on The Meditations , I fully accept that my criticism will be open to critique! I will also seek out more on works of etiquette so that Barbarians will be prepared when they visit the Hub of the Empire (note:pay no heed to the strange "Christian" sect as they consider a pig is a clean animal if it has lived as a vegeteaian for one year ,but ridiculously, if your cat or dog has climbed over the pig it is unclean! what next you may ask). Salvete! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viggen Posted October 28, 2005 Report Share Posted October 28, 2005 Fratres! I intend that my next review will be of "Rubicon" by Tom Holland. I assume some members will have already read this book as it has been available for a while now(late June in the province of Brittania)? Yeah, Ursus made even a review on it! http://www.unrv.com/book-review/rubicon.php cheers viggen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pertinax Posted October 28, 2005 Author Report Share Posted October 28, 2005 My apologies I overlooked the review-ill post a short note and assume that most members are already familiar with the work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viggen Posted October 28, 2005 Report Share Posted October 28, 2005 hi pertinax oh no, please there is nothing wrong with a second opinion! cheers viggen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pertinax Posted October 29, 2005 Author Report Share Posted October 29, 2005 You are gracious Viggen ,I salute you! I am waiting for my copy of Rubicon to arrive and will set to work on it asap. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.