On translating Homer, Essays (university) of English Literature

Download On translating Homer and more Essays (university) English Literature in PDF only on Docsity!

^n", t nm. \m.

Pel'

W'

CORNELL UNIVERSITY LIBRARY GIFT OF Professor B.S. (^) Monroe

The original of tliis book is in

tlie Cornell University Library.

There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the (^) use of the text. http://www.archive.org/details/cu

DATE DUE j/StU4^ ^J^mm^^ CAYLORO RINTED IN U.S. PA4153 (^) .aTIsoS™™"" '•"""'>' SlJiiinSi^SlSl'njSI Homer,

olin 3 1924 030 981 231

ON TRANSLATING

HOMER

BY MATTHEW ARNOLD

NEW EDITION

WITH INTRODUCTION & NOTES

BY W. H. D. ROUSE, M.A., Litt.D.

HEAD MASTER OF PERSE GRAMMAR SCHOOL, CAMBRIDGE

LONDON

JOHN MURRAY, ALBEMARLE STREET

PRINTED BY HAZELL, WATSON AND^ VINEY,^ LD., LONDON AND^ AYLESBURY. a- <

PAGE CONTENTS INTEODUCTORY (^) "l ON TRANSLATING HOMER. By Matthew (^) Arnold 33 NOTES (^193) INDEX (^199)

INTRODUCTION Me. Newman's translation of (^) Homer, which suggested

the following essay, is dead, and probably no one

ever looks at it now except out of curiosity. (^) It is fortunate, however, (^) that he made the attempt; for Matthew Arnold's examination of it, with all its faults, has the merit which (^) outweighs many faults, of appealing to first principles. This is a rare virtue in criticism, and one httle known at the (^) present day, when the criterion of excellence (^) is too often

an arbitrary whim, or a taste imperfect because

founded on imperfect (^) knowledge. The modern critic has rarely studied the masters of his own art. Longinus is hardly known to him even by name Aristotle (^) is little more than a name ; and the great

masterpieces of literary style, which are nearly all

Greek, are left aside as antiquated lumber. Matthew

Arnold, if not a scholar in the exact sense, had at

least enough knowledge of Greek to appreciate its

beauties. He read Homer for himseK,^ and^ himseK a poet could appreciate Homer's consummate skill. At the (^) same time, his temper was too dogmatic, and we shall see in the course of this inquiry that he was led (^) into hasty generalisation. For one thing, he takes up an untenable position 1

2 INTRODUCTION

in cliampioning the unity of tte Homeric^ poems.

Probably no scholar at this time will be found to

maintain that the Iliad and^ the Odyssey^ were^ composed

by one poet. This was the view of most ancient

critics, including the incomparable Longinus, although

there were even in antiquity some^ (the^ Ohorizontes,

as they were called) who ascribed the poems to two different poets. The general agreement of the ancients on this point is less surprising, when (^) we remember that they went more by instinct than by critical analysis. There was a general resemblance between the two poems in substance and form: wide (^) differences between them both, and the life (^) and literature of the sixth or the third centuries before

Christ. This resemblance and these differences were

enough to make the ancient critics blind to (^) many in- consistencies in the poems themselves ; and they were accepted for the work of one hand, as readily as (^) the Psalms are (^) now commonly accepted for (^) the work of King David. Nor must we forget that the (^) poems were studied and learnt by heart in (^) school, that

children are not critical, and that early impressions

last long. But however strong the ancient (^) convic- tion may have been, it (^) cannot stand for a moment as (^) evidence against the results of modern (^) research.

A minute and intelligent study of the language of

the Homeric poems has only (^) been possible within (^) the last generation, and its main results (^) are unanswer- able. By this study, it appears (^) quite clearly (^) that

certain portions of the Iliad are later than the rest

for instance, (^) the tenth book. No less (^) important (^) is the evidence of the substance. (^) Thus the (^) embassy

4 INTEODUCTION

We thus find the work of three great poets^ in^ the

Homeric poems, and evidence of the existence of

traditional poems in^ the^ epic^ metre^ which^ are^ older than any of them. An examination of the epic style,

moreover, with its^ stock^ epithets, its^ unerring^ tact

in suiting the means to the effect, its elaborate and

fixed dialect, and, above all, its rhythmical per-

fection, forces us to the conclusion that we have in these poems the last^ fruit^ of^ a long^ development. Hundreds of poets must have worked to bring the

hexameter to its perfection; ever in touch with an

intelligent audience, whose unconscious criticism

gradually perfected the art and created the atmo-

sphere necessary for the rise of great poets. Such

is the history of all^ great^ literary^ movements : the epic, the lyric, the drama. And the work of the noblest spirits of this school alone survives, making

on us the deep impression^ which^ Shakespeare might

have made, if he had lived in an age when writing was not common, and if his predecessors (^) and contem- poraries had perished. The epic instrument is the work of a school, and its poets show the same (^) general resemblances as we see in the (^) mediaeval schools of

painting : in the one, as in the other, the master

can be easily distinguished, but in neither could the

master have come into existence without a long time of preparation. The characteristics of (^) the Homeric style are given by Matthew Arnold as these four : (^) he is rapid ; he

is plain and direct in expression, and in thought ; he is

noble. This is (^) a quite (^) satisfactory summary (^) of the style. (^) The first quality depends on (^) the structure of

CHAEACTEEISTICS OF GEEEK STYLE 5

the verse, and that upon, the morphological character

of the Greek language: on the strict observance of

quantity, and the recurrence of long words with light

body or terminations. There are in Greek very few

monosyllables, and those^ are^ mostly^ particles^ ; heavy

groups of consonants are not common, in comparison with the number^ of^ syllables^ made^ up^ of^ one^ con- sonant and one vowel. The vocal organs of the

people must have been delicate, as indeed are those

of their modern descendants when compared with Teutonic nations (^) ; the existence of a tone-accent, a

modulation of the voice as in music, distinct^ from

stress or volume of breath, proves their delicacy,

and is a further means of variety. Simplicity^ and

directness of expression and of thought are also

characteristic of good Greek style, but especially

noteworthy in the epic. The best quality,^ noble-

ness, is the hardest to define, but is as unmis-

takable when it appears,^ as^ beauty^ of^. any^ kind^ is to the mind capable of appreciating it. In the expression, this noble quality is bound up with

the character of the Greek language.^ In^ part^ this

fact is due to a simplicity of thought, which is^ not

peculiarly Greek, but is^ found^ in^ any^ age^ which^ is

not ashamed to look facts in the face ; but in^ part^ it

is due to the fact, that^ the^ language^ contains^ no^ set

of words exclusively used by vulgar or coarse^ persons,

as English does. Nobleness of^ thought^ depends^ on

the nobleness^ of^ the^ speaker.^ This^ last^ head,^ of nobleness, is the theme of Longinus's^ book,^ and^ to this topic his criticism^ of^ Homer^ is^ confined^ ;^ and^ he rightly traces the virtue to nobleness of_^ mind.^ To

ja.UL;JliiNX AINU l<^UAiMi±X I

the syntax is direct and simple ; every sentence

becomes clear phrase by phrase, no matter what the

construction, and the end of a sentence does not go

counter to the first impression. There is no piling

up of descriptive epithets, no elaborating of emotional impressions; admiration, terror, or pity is unfail- ingly evoked by a simple statement of fact, and there is no obtruding of the poet himself, who remains

always in the background, the simple teller of a tale,

and concerned only to tell it truly.

This being so, we are in a position to judge not inaccurately how Homer appeared to the Greeks. Matthew Arnold thinks we cannot ; and it is^ quite true that we cannot altogether put ourselves in their place. "We cannot, for example, now say exactly how Homer's verse sounded in their ears (^) ; and yet we can tell even this more nearly than Matthew Arnold

imagined. Sanscrit verse, like G-reek, had both quan-

tity and musical accent ; and the recitation of the

Vedic poems, as handed down by immemorial^ tradition, and as it may be heard to-day, keeps both these elements clear. It is a sort of intoned recitative,

most impressive and agreeable to the sensitive ear.

Homer's simplicity and directness, again, would seem

natural (^) to a Greek who found Herodotus natural;

while his words, his inflexions, and to some degree

his syntax, would to them seem a little old-fashioned, yet not unnatural, but very much as the Bible seems

to us now, perhaps almost like Chaucer. This is a

different thing, of course, from Newman's uncouth- ness, but it is not fair to deny it altogether. The

principles of Greek verse, as of^ the Greek language.

8 INTEODUOTION in Homer and in Sophocles were the^ same^ ; but^ the Greek (^) of the fifth century would hear Homer recited with (^) much the same feeling as we should hear Chaucer, if we had been taught in^ school^ to^ under-

stand and to pronounce his verses with^ proper

attention (^) to the ancient rules. Nor are we left wholly to reasoning in this^ matter^ : we^ can^ read in Longinus and other Greek critics their own account of the impression which Homer made upon them. No author is^ quoted^ so^ often^ by^ Longinus, who cites him as the great exemplar^ of^ sublimity,

and speaks of his impetuosity, simplicity, and force.

He does not censure his choice of words, as he

censures Thucydides, nor suggest obscurity as a fault

in him. It seems that Homer's style seemed natural

to Longinus,^. and that he appreciated in^ him the same shining merits as we do. He does, however,

say that the Odyssey is not so uniformly elevated as

the Iliad, and (^) regards the Odyssey as the work of

Homer's old age.

It would seem, (^) then, that we need not despair of knowing how Homer appeared to the Greeks. Whether the same impression can be conveyed in

English to an English audience is another matter

and first we have to ask. (^) What audience (^)? Most translators would (^) appeal to the reader who knows no Greek; Matthew Arnold would appeal to the scholar. Which, then, (^) is to be the court of final appeal? The English (^) reader, who knows no Greek, (^) or, as Matthew

Arnold holds, the scholar ?

There is a weakness in both classes : the English