In the last few days, Twitter has been occupied with debating the value of different translations of the Odyssey, and in particular the merits or demerits of Emily Wilson’s recent translation which sought to strip the text of what she considered to be undue narrative aggrandisement of aggression.
"If I’m going to spend six hours in the company of a poet, I’d prefer him to say clearly and precisely what he means rather than shoe-horning in rhymes." You should absolutely never, under any circumstances, read Paul Muldoon.
Interesting that you've not put any newer translations on this. I have the Shadi Bartsch at home (as well as Heaney's book 6), and I have heard good things about the Sarah Ruden. I do think that translation is an art that is improving in both quality and quantity over time, unlike many others. I've not gone deep into different Aeneid translations, but I have had occasion to look at the golden bough passage in a bunch of them (for JG Frazer reasons), and the very recent ones strike me as much more informed by actual poetic standards: mid-twentieth century translations were often which were often written by people who vaguely knew of modern English poetry by reputation. (Older translations often were actually written by poets, but they were writing in very old poetic traditions that are alien to us as much as Virgil's; eighteenth-century poetry in particular is hard to stomach nowadays.)
(An aside: I am not an Anglo-Saxonist, but I have read and listened with openness to their arguments against Heaney's Beowulf, and in almost every context the conclusion was inescapable that Heaney rendered the Old English absolutely fine, and the Anglo-Saxonists just didn't know the ins and outs of Ulster English. Heaney's was explicitly and deliberately a translation into Ulster English, and passages that are criticised for taking liberties with the text are very often just written the way that I would naturally render the line into my speech as an Ulsterman, even if that's alien to SSB or GA-speaking scholars.)
The selection of translations was driven exclusively by what I could find online without paying - if you can find the specific passage in Bartsch I'd love to add it above!
Your point about Heaney's Beowulf makes sense, and I wouldn't criticise Fagles etc for translating into American English as opposed to the King's. It does still somewhat recommend against Heaney's translation if you're a non-Ulsterman who cares primarily about accuracy, since regardless of Heaney's intention you're going to get a misguided picture. I have no idea precisely how misguided, or indeed how much casual non-scholarly readers even ought to care about accuracy.
"If I’m going to spend six hours in the company of a poet, I’d prefer him to say clearly and precisely what he means rather than shoe-horning in rhymes." You should absolutely never, under any circumstances, read Paul Muldoon.
Interesting that you've not put any newer translations on this. I have the Shadi Bartsch at home (as well as Heaney's book 6), and I have heard good things about the Sarah Ruden. I do think that translation is an art that is improving in both quality and quantity over time, unlike many others. I've not gone deep into different Aeneid translations, but I have had occasion to look at the golden bough passage in a bunch of them (for JG Frazer reasons), and the very recent ones strike me as much more informed by actual poetic standards: mid-twentieth century translations were often which were often written by people who vaguely knew of modern English poetry by reputation. (Older translations often were actually written by poets, but they were writing in very old poetic traditions that are alien to us as much as Virgil's; eighteenth-century poetry in particular is hard to stomach nowadays.)
(An aside: I am not an Anglo-Saxonist, but I have read and listened with openness to their arguments against Heaney's Beowulf, and in almost every context the conclusion was inescapable that Heaney rendered the Old English absolutely fine, and the Anglo-Saxonists just didn't know the ins and outs of Ulster English. Heaney's was explicitly and deliberately a translation into Ulster English, and passages that are criticised for taking liberties with the text are very often just written the way that I would naturally render the line into my speech as an Ulsterman, even if that's alien to SSB or GA-speaking scholars.)
The selection of translations was driven exclusively by what I could find online without paying - if you can find the specific passage in Bartsch I'd love to add it above!
Your point about Heaney's Beowulf makes sense, and I wouldn't criticise Fagles etc for translating into American English as opposed to the King's. It does still somewhat recommend against Heaney's translation if you're a non-Ulsterman who cares primarily about accuracy, since regardless of Heaney's intention you're going to get a misguided picture. I have no idea precisely how misguided, or indeed how much casual non-scholarly readers even ought to care about accuracy.
I'll be home on 3rd of January and I'll send you the Bartsch then.