The Iliad

Translations of the Iliad
In most societies, stories and story telling are an important part of the people’s culture. Stories passed are down from generation to generation so many times that it is a part of their history. As these stories become popular on a global level, then the factor of translation comes into play which has a great effect of the tone and meaning behind the story. An example of this is the Iliad, written by Homer. The Iliad is a story of an ancient Greek battle, written in poetic form. When translating the poem into English, it is very difficult to maintain that poetic form and still maintain the literary context that the original had. Translations differ greatly from one to another, for example, the translation by Robert Fagles attempts to find a middle ground between a straight forward English translation and the literary meaning and style behind the story. The translation by Richmond Lattimore seems to focus less on the style and more on the story. These two translations have both their pros and cons. With Fagles’ translation, he maintains some of the essence that the original poem had by using more descriptive words, keeping to the idea of a poem. However, this does make it slightly harder to comprehend. While in Lattimore’s version he selects less descriptive and powerful words which make the Iliad sound less like a poem and more like a novel. I feel that Fagles version is better because it keeps in mind the idea of a poem and is fuller and more authentic version than Lattimore’s.
Starting from the first few lines there is great contrast between the styles of Lattimore and Fagles even though they are translating the same story. Fagles’ version starts off, “Rage—Goddess, sing the rage of Peleus’ son Achilles, murderous, doomed, that cost the Achaeans countless losses, hurling down to the House of Death so many souls” (77). The language that Fagles uses is powerful and impactful and the words flow smoothly together, showing that it is indeed meant to be a poem. I feel that this creates a more vivid image in the readers mind.
Lattimore’s version is slightly different, beginning with, “Sing goddess, the anger of Peleus’ son Achileus and its devastation, which put pains thousand fold upon the Achaians, hurled in their multitudes to the house of Hades strong souls” (5). Already one can see contrast between the two. The first thing that comes to mind is the difference in word choice. Rage versus anger; murderous and doom versus devastation. Fagles’ version stands out more than Lattimore’s version. In Fagles’ version the rage and suffering is more pronounced while in Lattimore’s version this feeling is toned down.
Another example comes from the scene where Achilles is talking to Athena after Patroklos’ death. Fagles interprets this with, “Patroclus—the man I loved beyond all other comrades, loved as my own life—I’ve lost him—Hector’s killed him, stripped of the gigantic armor off his back, a marvel to behold—“ (470).While Lattimore’s version is, “Patroklos, whom I loved beyond all other companions, as well as my own life. I have lost him, and Hektor, who killed him, has stripped away that gigantic armor, a wonder to look on” (23). This, like the first example, there are a number of similarities, the beginnings of the passages are almost identical. But again, Fagles adds more description to some areas and more vivid diction.
An interesting aspect of Lattimore's translation is that he does not fully translate the story. He omits lines and sections, and paraphrases certain areas. Throughout his version he inserts recaps on what had happened between events that he had omitted. Fagles is much more inclusive with his version, creating a much more complete story. Fagles gives you the whole feeling of the book while Lattimore's is more for the story.
Although Lattimore’s version is overall less vivid than Fagles, he does take advantage of one type of style and that is the use of the stock epithet. For example, Lattimore may refer to Achilles as "swift footed Achilles" and by doing this it makes it easier for the readers to remember the characters. The stock epithet is one of the styles that Lattimore took from the original poem while Fagles didn’t focus on this as intently. Another aspect that Lattimore kept was the Greek spelling of names. This makes his version more authentic, while Fagles translates the names into an English interpretation.
Along with the idea of interpretation comes meaning. These two translations stemmed from the very same piece of literature and ended up with similar yet different versions. Thinking about this brings to mind the bible. In order for the bible to be spread around the world it needs to be translated into different languages. Through the translations, ideas or meaning may have been lost or altered, and examples used to explain events in one culture could make no sense to someone from another culture. Also, people can interpret the very same piece of literature and find see different meanings. That is what makes literature such as the bible very controversial, meanings are subjective to the reader’s interpretations.
Translation and interpretation are very important when literature is brought to other cultures. Meanings and feelings can be altered which can change the message. Sections can be omitted or distorted in order to make sense to the readers, but that means that you are not getting the full story. That is why it is sometimes hard for translations to be truly effective, and it can alter our perception.