Reviews for Roman Eloquence

The average rating for Roman Eloquence based on 2 reviews is 3.5 stars.

Review # 1 was written on 2012-12-24 00:00:00 Albert Regalado Hmmmmm, 20 pages of the 97 (in the public domain PDF I have) are Notes and Table of Contents, so it was a rather quick read. Despite the small size, numerous poets and forms are discussed. I did really like this comment: Prayer for the success of attempted adultery is a contradiction in terms. I wish I had read THIS first, before the two other tomes on troubadours I plodded through. I also liked the arrangement of chapters: styles/periods and then by countries. Chaytor makes me wanna hang out with Cardenal and Daniel much more than the Beat's Kerouac and Burroughs. Oh, wait: they're all dead.

Review # 2 was written on 2009-08-08 00:00:00 Ben Rigby In this book (really a collection of three lectures from 1860 with a long epilogue responding to his critics) Matthew Arnold discusses the challenge of translating Homer into English. He is reacting in particular to a recent translation of the Iliad by one F.W. Newman, but Arnold eloquently illustrates some of the problems with translation in general. One can render the words as literally as possible and yet totally miss the rhythm and feeling of the original language. Arnold identifies the essential qualities of Homer's work: "that he is eminently rapid; that he is eminently plain and direct both in the evolution of his thought and in the expression of it, that is, both in his syntax and in his words; that he is eminently plain and direct in the substance of his thought, that is, in his matter and ideas; and, finally, that he is eminently noble." Using illustrations from Newman's translation as well as famous earlier attempts by George Chapman and Alexander Pope, among others, Arnold shows how he thinks they fall short in one or more of these essential qualities. His third lecture culminates in his attempts to create a satisfactory translation of a few scenes of the Iliad. Though Arnold at times works directly with the Greek, most of this book would be of interest to anyone who has pondered (let alone attempted) the art of translation. His criticisms of Newman and the others are occasionally hilarious in an understated British way. And even if you don't find Arnold's own translations completely convincing, you will have been provoked to think more about what goes into a good translation.