The Metamorphoses

[Anonymous No.17604849]

What is the best English translation/edition of Ovid's Metamorphoses?

[Anonymous No.17604878]

>>17604849
>What is the best edition of Ovid's Metamorphoses?
Everyman's Library

[Anonymous No.17604970]

>>17604849
Dryden and Friends

[Anonymous No.17605182]

>>17604970
An anon of taste

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oI3er5KKetj No.17605188]

>>17604849
Humphries

[Anonymous No.17605208]

>>17604849
Read a modern translation to get a feel of the stories then go back and read Goldings for poetic beauty

[Anonymous No.17605327]

Charles Martin

[Anonymous No.17605735]

i compared a whole bunch lately when i was setting out to read the metamorphoses, anon
firstly, pound praises golding highly, calling it 'the most beautiful book in the language', and also it has some reflected glory due to shakespeare ripping off a few short passages in his work, which leads to people saying things like
>read Goldings for poetic beauty
having read 2/15 books in it, I AM NOW CONVINCED THIS IS NOTHING BUT A MEME
it doesn't read smoothly at all, and he is all-too-prone to fill out the (long, seven-foot) lines with redundant adjectives and needless formulations like 'for to'
moreover, it is very difficult not to read his 'fourteeners' (as seven-footed iambic lines are sometimes called) without imparting a too-strong nursery rhyme rhythm to them, as they tend to pause after the fourth foot, and thereby break too readily into alternating four- and three- beat lines (ballad meter), which has a rollicking feel, all too full of gusto for a sophisticate like ovid
(fourteeners written by other poets with better metrical control do not always have this problem, but golding just can't help himself)
it also has lots of weird scots words, which are admittedly fun
i have high admiration for pound's taste and judgement, but having tried hard, i just can't see what he saw

i looked a bit at the dryden/garth translation, less than at golding, and found it not too bad and certainly it reads a lot smoother than golding
but for me it has too strong a smell of eighteenth-century wit and elegance, and ultimately i'm not convinced that rhyming pairs of iambic pentameter (is this heroic couplets?) is a good fit to translate unrhymed epic meter (dactylic hexameters iirc): i felt that it gave a sort of glib, punchliney flow
overall i found it faintly sickly and cloying

of the modern ones, i haven't compared beyond consulting this page on goodreads, where someone has posted the opening lines in a whole bunch of translations (not really enough to get a sense desu, but what ya gonna do):
>https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/1656193-ovid-s-metamorphoses

of those, i liked a. d. melville's the best, and have been very happy with it so far: it has a grandeur which to me is apt to the material but which the other modern versions seemed to lack
(admittedly, others seem to perceive this same quality in melville as a phony old-timey affectation, but for me, those people just haven't read enough old poetry)
my only tiny gripe is that sometimes he uses enjambement for so many lines in a row that you lose the sense of the underlying iambic meter, but honestly almost everyone does this, it's just not to my tastes

others which seem to get praised are lombardo and (/ourguy/) mandelbaum
take your pick: desu i am sure any of the top-tier modern translations are good enough

[Anonymous No.17605759]

also, here someone compares one passage in three classic translations, including golding and garth/dryden, which may be of interest:
>https://www.theparisreview.org/blog/2018/08/29/an-ovidian-taste-test-the-old-verse-translations-of-ovids-metamorphoses/

also also it's not a full translation, but when you are done with reading a full translation, you may wish to look at ted hughes' translation (or imitation?), tales from ovid

good luck and enjoy your journey, anon! whatever translation you pick, you should get on fine, it's great fun, and very readable

[Anonymous No.17605771]

>>17605759
>>17605735
So, what did you end up choosing anon? I'd like something smooth so I'm assuming Mandelbaum is good enough?

[Anonymous No.17605775]

I've already read Mandelbaum's and wanted to get another one to see a different conception of the work, wondering which would complement what he does/doesn't do best.

[Anonymous No.17605781]

>>17605327
lol

[Anonymous No.17605786]

>>17605781
this reads like video game dialogue

[Anonymous No.17605802]

>>17605786
But anon, this is from the award-winning Norton Classics Edition, thus lauded by Robert Fagles: “Among the accomplished translations of Ovid in our day, this version of Metamorphoses by Charles Martin―elegant, witty and exuberant by turns, and epic in its span from the creation of the world to the apotheosis of Julius Caesar―should now lay claim to its own distinguished ground.”

[Anonymous No.17605805]

>>17605771
i went with a. d. melville and like it and would recommend it
i would probably suggest either that or mandelbaum, i guess? take a look at the excerpts on that goodreads page and see if any of them speak to you
>>17605781
christ that's bad
this is your brain on heroic couplets, kids
just say no

[Anonymous No.17605814]

>>17605781
Which Latin word was translated as "homey"?

[Anonymous No.17606504]

>>17605735
Golding is a terrible translation. Maybe good in its own right but it's a completely different book.

[Anonymous No.17606564]

>>17606504
>good in its own right but it's a completely different book
right, this is the meme, but when reading it I tended to find it wasn't very good even on that level

[Anonymous No.17607068]

>>17605781
This is like the Emily Wilson Oddysey all over again.

[Anonymous No.17608394]

>>17607068
what was wrong with the Wilson translation? I only have the T.E. Lawrence.

[Anonymous No.17608404]

>>17605781
god. just learn latin

[Anonymous No.17608440]

Kafka's

[Anonymous No.17608508]

>>17608394
she had the gall to be a woman and amend the errors of her male predecessors

[Anonymous No.17609344]

>>17605781
this is based, not all translations have to be completely faithful of serious, specially not for a text that has been translated as much like the Metamorphoses.

[anon No.17609402]

Who did it best?

Book 1, passage from Apollo and Daphne

>Golding
There from hys quiver full of shafts two arrowes did he take
Of sundrie workes: t'one causeth Love, the tother doth it slake.
That causeth love, is all of golde with point full sharpe and bright,
That chaseth love is blunt, whose stele with leaden head is dight.
The God this fired in the Nymph Peneis for the nones:
The tother perst Apollos heart and overraft his bones.

>Mandelbaum
There, from his quiver, Cupid drew two shafts
of opposite effect: the first rejects,
the second kindles love. This last is golden,
its tip is sharp and glittering; the first
is blunt, its tip is leaden, and with this
blunt shaft the god pierced Daphne. With the tip
of gold he hit Apollo; and the arrow
pierced to the bones and marrow.

>Melville
And from his quiver's laden armoury
He drew two arrows of opposing power,
One shaft that rouses love and one that routs it.
The first gleams bright with piercing point of gold;
the other, dull and blunt, is tipped with lead.
This one he lodged in Daphne's heart; the first
he shot to pierce Apollo to the marrow.

>Humphries
Drew from his quiver different kinds of arrows,
One causing love, golden and sharp and gleaming,
The other blunt, and tipped with lead, and serving
To drive all love away, and this blunt arrow
He used on Daphne, but he fired the other,
The sharp and golden shaft, piercing Apollo
Through bones, through marrow

>Martin
and from his quiver drew two arrows out
which operated at cross-purposes,
for one engendered flight, the other, love;
the latter has a polished tip of gold,
the former has a tip of dull, blunt lead;
with this one, Cupid struck Peneus’ daughter,
while the other pierced Apollo to his marrow.

[Anonymous No.17609419]

>>17609402
Golding by far

[Anonymous No.17609443]

>>17609402
Thanks anon
I haven't read the original but Melville seems the most convincing to me

[Anonymous No.17609455]

>>17604849
Just learn Latin and read him in the original. Trust me, Ovid is worth it. His poetical qualities depend on the Latin language and its grammar for its effectiveness. You're missing out on so much when you read him in translation.

[Anonymous No.17610572]

>>17609402
Now compare with Lombardi's.

He stood there,
And drew from his quiver two quite different arrows,
One that dispels love and one that impels it.
The latter is golden with a sharp glistening point,
The former blunt with a shaft made of lead.
The god struck the nymph with arrow number two
And feathered the first deep into Apollo’s marrow.

[anon No.17610741]

>>17609402
>original
constitit arce
eque sagittifera prompsit duo tela pharetra
diversorum operum: fugat hoc, facit illud amorem;
quod facit, auratum est et cuspide fulget acuta,
quod fugat, obtusum est et habet sub harundine plumbum.
hoc deus in nympha Peneide fixit, at illo
laesit Apollineas traiecta per ossa medullas;
>>17610572
Something about him using "arrow number two" makes me laugh because of how down to earth it's phrased. I really like how he rendered "laesit" (he struck) as feathered. The image comes off much better.

[Anonymous No.17611094]

>>17605781
Really odd choice here, because the rest of the book in this translation is not in this bizarre vernacular. I checked my copy to be sure that this wasn't some kind of troll. Not sure what Martin was thinking with this bullshit.

[Anonymous No.17611876]

>>17609402
Golding wins 1st place.

[Anonymous No.17612622]

>>17605735
If you want poetic beauty, read the Dryden Translation.

[Anonymous No.17612667]

Golding's was Shakespeare's, and that's good enough for me.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oI3er5KKetj No.17612690]

>>17609419
>Golding
>>17611876
>Golding
You can’t tell a thing he’s saying. Penisae? For the nones?
Any of those who uses Daphne’s name are superior. Humphries for me.

[Anonymous No.17612702]

>>17604849
I just started Metamorphoses recently and was looking for a modern translation.
I went through a lot of the examples posted and settled on either the Lombardo or Mandelbaum, finally went with Mandelbaum. Highly readable while maintaining a classical feel with the language and flow of the work.

[Anonymous No.17612709]

>>17608508

[Anonymous No.17612915]

>>17612690
Don't exaggerate. Anyone with half a brain can understand 85% of what he is saying and he, like Martin, actually respected Ovid's rhetorical circumlocution for her "nympha Peneide", which is commonly used in epic poetry, e.g. the son of Venus == Aeneas. As for your preference, cool. No need to repeat yourself.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oI3er5KKetj No.17613043]

>>17612915
If they read it over two or three times. It really distracts for what should be an enjoyable read.

>no need to repeat yourself
Why not, not enjoyable?

[Anonymous No.17613234]

>>17605814
frateus

[Anonymous No.17613336]

>>17609402
>Mandelbaum
Me likey

[Anonymous No.17615412]

>>17604849
Horace Gregory's is underrated.

[Anonymous No.17616251]

>>17605781
lmfao. ovid would have loved this translation, unironically

[Anonymous No.17617648]

Melville's is bretty gud.

[Anonymous No.17618768]

>>17605781
kek