/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.20057674]

Are Pope's translations of Homer worth reading? Should I read them as their own separate works rather than just another translation?
I've already read Lattimore's translation, so I already understand the story well enough.

[Anonymous No.20057779]

>I've already read Lattimore's translation, so I already understand the story well enough.
Then read 'em and find out. Here's Pope's Iliad
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/6130/6130-h/6130-h.htm

[Anonymous No.20057798]

The wrath of Peleus’ son, the direful SPRING!
Of all the Grecian woes, O Goddess, SING!!
That wrath which hurled to Pluto’s gloomy REIGN!
The souls of mighty chiefs untimely SLAIN!
Whose limbs, unburied on the naked SHORE
Devouring dogs and hungry vultures TORE!
Since great Achilles and Atrides STROVE!
Such was the sovereign doom, and such the will of JOVE!

[Anonymous No.20057817]

By jove they are

[Anonymous No.20057821]

>>20057798
A poem w-w-with rhymes?!? Somebody call THE POLICE.

[Anonymous No.20057839]

>>20057674
Yes and yes

[Anonymous No.20057867]

>>20057674
Idk about Homer but you should read Ossianic poetry

[Anonymous No.20057872]

>>20057798
By Zeus, anon! I'll only be able to read Pope in beastie boy meter from now on.

[Anonymous No.20057874]

>>20057821
Yeah ossian rhymes and hes he best poet

[Anonymous No.20057951]

where the fuck are my Rousechads at

[Anonymous No.20058718]

Pope is an incredible translator. I like Lattimore the most, but Pope filled a missing aspect that few would go for, which is the poetic component. Most everyone does literal translations these days, and if they don't, they are massively divergent. Pope stayed true to Homer in the way he made it applicable to an English audience. Plus, he did it all while sick.

[Anonymous No.20058724]

>>20057951
>Pope stayed true to Homer
And other jokes you can tell yourself!!

Go read Chapmans Iliad OP it's better. Pope is a shitty poet and translator.

[Anonymous No.20059459]

>>20058724
>Pope is shitty
>Read Chapman instead

I hope this is just bait

[Anonymous No.20059824]

>>20058718
Is the poetic aspect of Lattimore any good or is he only really good in the sense of his translation being literal and academic?

[Anonymous No.20060004]

Fitzgerald chad has entered the thread

[Anonymous No.20060477]

>>20059459
Chapmans Homer is vastly superior to Pope's shitty pentameter.

[Anonymous No.20060502]

>>20060477
>>20058724
Literally nobody has ever read that translation other than keats or Yeats or whatever that old white fsggots name is. Absolutely nobody. The only good that translation ever did is give delilo a good pun in underworld. Quit larping. Pope’s translation is beautiful and timeless like Shakespeare, one of the greatest poets to ever live, best introduction to the Iliad save lattimore

[Anonymous No.20060819]

>>20060502
>One of the best poets to ever live
And despite this he somehow didn't survive the frequent barrage of attacks laid against him by the modernists. Don't insult Shakespeare by comparing them.

Keats wrote an entire poem about Champan, Pound called it the best translation, Eliot loved it etc. No one reads Pope anymore, the fucking simpleton only understood English in cheap rhymes and poor translation work. His mock poems are more like studying archeology because of how vague everything is. Pope is forgotten and in the dustbin of history for a reason.

Not to say that Golding or Chapman are well remembered, but the quality of their verse is superior to Pope.

[Anonymous No.20060860]

>>20059824
Lattimore is most certainly not devoid of any feeling. His translations are precise but not sterile. Lattimore might be the best literal translator ever. That said, Fitzgerald or Fagles may be preferred for a more poetic translation that isn't Pope. Modern readers, unaccustomed to poetry, typically prefer those two over Pope since rhyming couplets, as well as some of his word choices, might seem a bit antiquated.

[Anonymous No.20061871]

>>20057674
Yes and yes. It's more Pope than Homer, but it's some damn good Pope

[Anonymous No.20062846]

>>20060819
Everything you said in this post is so backward to the reality there's nothing to say to you.
>And despite this he somehow didn't survive the frequent barrage of attacks laid against him by the modernists.
There's no substance in this post to respond to. What do you want me to do? Respond to every criticism levied against Pope? Or do you plan on saying what you mean instead of regurgitating tertiary literature?
>Pope is forgotten and in the dustbin of history for a reason.
No he's not. What are you talking about retard? Do you read at all or just make shit up as you go along? Pope's literary popularity was only behind Shakespeare in the 20th century. He's way more popular now than he was in the 18th. CHAPMAN is forgotten and in the dustbin of history for a reason. Who reads Chapman?
>Keats wrote an entire poem about Champan, Pound called it the best translation, Eliot loved it etc.
Ok, Samuel Johnson. Are we playing Pokemon? Of course none of that matters when the only index to quality is itself an index to popularity, and nobody reads Chapman. It's not even in print. Even Pope's Iliad is still in print, because people read it.
>Not to say that Golding or Chapman are well remembered, but the quality of their verse is superior to Pope.
They aren't well remembered you're right. They're forgotten. Chapman's Homer is a poem, not a translation. It's a pun by Delilo. Nothing more. You can't whine about nobody reading Pope and then back an irrelevant translation nobody has read in a century. Last year I tried to get pdf scans of Chapman's Iliad & Odyssey (with footnotes) on Libgen but they couldn't even find a copy to do that.

[Anonymous No.20062906]

>>20060819
We get it, you've read the ABC of Reading. Decent book but it produces some of the most obnoxious pseuds around.

[Anonymous No.20063148]

>>20057798
fuck

[Anonymous No.20063465]

>>20062846
Are you fucking retarded, not only is Chapman's Iliad in print (you can buy new editions on Amazon) but it's completely free online on LibGen, Gutenberg, Google books had it?? What little research did you do?

>Chapman's Homer is a poem, not a translation. It's a pun by Delilo
Is this a fucking joke? Pope was blasted in his own time for "writing a pretty poem, but it is not Homer". The most constant observation of Pope's shitty forced lines is that it is not a translation.

>No he's not. What are you talking about retard? Do you read at all or just make shit up as you go along? Pope's literary popularity was only behind Shakespeare in the 20th century. He's way more popular now than he was in the 18th. CHAPMAN is forgotten and in the dustbin of history for a reason. Who reads Chapman?
This is a joke, Pope was definitely not second to Shakespeare. For starters Milton and Spenser were both considerably more famous. Secondly literally no one reads Pope anymore, Iliad not withstanding I have never seen anyone in my lit classes ever mention him, and he is nearly entirely absent from contemporary poetry collections, studies and papers.

Just because you like Pope doesn't mean that he was a great poet, he wrote some good stuff, but his flaws are glaring. The charges levied against him are even more egregious than the ones against Milton, and you're vastly overstating his popularity. I don't feel like replying to the rest because it reeks of "no I don't care about any kind of literary criticism, go read Pope!".

Oh and his Odyssey was a sham and complete trash :>

[Anonymous No.20063471]

>>20062906
Yes, in that it helps laymen read poets better than Pope. Very pseud like, now go read your shitty rhymes.