The Iliad

When it comes to classic works of poetry in translation, such as those of Homer, Vergil, Dante and others, the translation makes all the difference. The type of translation, whether in rhyming verse, blank verse, prose etc., whether it is a strict line by line or more liberal translation, whether the wording and idioms are old fashioned or modern, can play such a great role that one translation may be completely different than another. This fact is probably often overlooked and attributes to the neglect of these classics, since a bad or difficult translation makes the poem seem tedious or dull.

Since Chapmans first translation of Homer into English in 1611 there have been dozens of others. Chapmans translation remains a classic, though its heavy and elaborate rhyming Elizabethan style and old wording make it quite laborious to read today. The next great translation was that of the renowned Enlightenment poet Alexander Pope; his Iliad was published progressively between 1715 and 1720. Popes translation is in rhyming verse with his heroic couplet and is eminently poetic. It is considered the greatest translation of Homer into English (Dr. Johnson called it "the noblest version of poetry which the world has ever seen") but it is not as plain and straightforward as Homer apparently is in the original. It is mostly for this reason that Popes translation has been critized as being more the work of the poet Pope than the poet Homer.

Of the more recent verse translations a few are worth recommendation. The latest translation is usually better than its predecessors, though each one is different. That of Richmond Lattimore takes a strict approach. His verse lines are long and the syntax unfortunately seems somewhat unnatural because he is attempting to imitate the stress patterns and flow of the original Greek hexameter. His translation tries to stay as close to the original Greek as possible and retain the form of epic language. The next translation is the one here, that of Robert Fitzgerald. Fitzgeralds translation is more modern, uses a shorter verse line and a natural English syntax. His translation is much easier to read and still retains the nobility of an epic poem. Finally, there is the translation of Robert Fagles. His translation is in blank verse, modern, rapid, simple and flowing. The noble simplicity of Greek style that the art historian Winkelmann so praised should also be found in a good translation of Homer. Like Fitzgerald, Fagles strives towards this and most approaches the ideal set out by the English poet and scholar Matthew Arnold for a translation of Homer: "Homer is rapid in his movement, Homer is plain in his words and style, Homer is simple in his ideas, Homer is noble in his manner." Fagles also uses the accepted Latin form of most Greek names: rather than "Akhilleus" he uses Achilles, rather than "Kyklops" he uses Cyclops. Lattimore and Fitzgerald sometimes annoyingly use the Greek versions, for no valid reason. They should have followed Arnolds advice on this point, who called such unnatural effect "pedantry" and claimed that the insistance on using the Greek variant for well-known names makes us "rub our eyes and call out How exceedingly odd!." Finally, the narrative prose translations are in my opinion the remotest from epic poetry and should be avoided, especially since there are good verse translations available.

It is an epic story about the final tenth year of the Trojan War in which the legendary warrior Achillies is denied the maiden Briseis by king Agammemnon. He refuses to join in battle and remains in his tent nursing his anger. Eventually he goes to face the Trojan warrior Hector on the battlefield when his pain over the tragic loss of his comrades overcomes his anger. It is very different to anything Ive read before, the action is constant, and there are no short exchanges of dialogue. The descriptions are on such a grand-scale. Emotions, whether anger, sadness or pain (theres plenty of that!) are always extreme. You get a sort of high reading about such legendary characters in a work 3000 years old, especially because of the archaic quality of the language. Watching Zeus and Hera argue is hilarious! It can be very moving in some parts. Read it with a reference book or a Companion to The Iliad or something, it would be very difficult to understand otherwise. My edition is in prose, and from what Ive read of other reviews, I suppose I missed out for not reading it in verse. Reading this book also helps to understand allusions made to Greek Literature in other classics. So, thats my un-expert opinion on the book. If I was more familiar with Greek Literature or History, I would perhaps appreciate it more. But for anyone, it remains an enjoyable and enlightening read.