The translation of ancient epic poetry is a very complex topic since it is an activity that is at least four millennia old and comprises thousands of works in more languages than any individual scholar could hope to survey. The enormous prestige of epic within the hierarchy of texts and genres has fueled an unprecedented amount of translating activity over the centuries, which in turn makes translation one of the best indices to critical thought on the genre itself. In addition, the high-stakes game of translating epic has also occasioned some of the most revealing discussions of literary translation in general, such that the very history of translation can be traced through epic examples. Lastly, since the majority of ancient epic’s readers have encountered the poems almost exclusively in translation for some time now, our reception and conceptualization of epic as a whole are deeply indebted to the work of translators, who forge the links between traductio and traditio that have kept epic viable in modern culture. The first words of John Dryden’s introduction to his translation of the Aeneid show the awesome significance of the endeavor for him: ‘‘A heroic poem, truly such, is undoubtedly the greatest work which the soul of man is capable to perform. The design of it is to form the mind to heroic virtue by example’’ (1944: ix). The genre itself thus clearly raises the stakes for the translator’s task; only biblical translation can rival that of epic in cultural importance.
Given the vast scope of the subject, this chapter will best serve its purpose by providing a taste of the issues with reference to particular types of translation, but without any pretense to either chronological or topical comprehensiveness. My examples will be taken largely from Homeric and Virgilian translation simply because these traditions show the greatest variety and chronological range (see the survey of Homeric translation in Young 2003); however, the concepts under discussion will be easily exported by the reader to other epics in translation. In what follows we shall focus on issues that show the interplay between the source text (or ‘‘original’’) and the target text (or ‘‘translation’’) and its target culture (the culture that creates and receives the translation).
Translation is not a simple act like pouring water from one bucket into another. It is a term that covers a broad spectrum of transference activities, ranging from the lowly student trot (the proverbial ‘‘word for word’’ translation) to the free adaptation across media (e. g., from epic poem to prose novel, drama, opera, or film). The criteria for success vary greatly according to the medium, era, and expectations surrounding both original and translation. This wide variation renders impossible the quest for a ‘‘definitive’’
Translation, since there is no agreement as to what defines “definitive.’’ What the new field of Translation Studies can add to this discussion is mostly a deeper historical awareness of translational practices and a more refined descriptive apparatus (as explored especially by Gideon Toury, 1995; for Translation Studies in general, see Baker 1998; Venuti 2000; Munday 2001). Any prescriptive apparatus at this point would be a matter of taste or particular circumstances and needs, but not of academic authority. However, the prescriptive approach, when it is well articulated, is very helpful for the descriptive project, as in the case of Matthew Arnold’s famous essay, ‘‘On translating Homer’’ (1861), which brings to life the controversial positions on translation for English culture. While that essay remains a classic of translation criticism, its approach would be out of place here, though its observations will serve us below in dissecting how the task of translation is framed within the nineteenth-century English horizon.
World History
