who did their translations more than 450 years ago? In proto-Elizabethan English? Sure, Golding's Ovid has its moments, but come on: the only reason it's read at all anymore is because of its influence on Shakespeare. She justifies this travesty by citing Arthur Golding and George Chapman. She seems constitutionally incapable of writing poems that don't rhyme, even when the poem she's translating has no rhymes to begin with. Stallings, it does seem crazy! The note's second sentence is, "I had no such plan when I set out." Hahaha, bullshit. "It might seem crazy in modern times to render 7,400-odd lines of Latin poetry on physics and philosophy into rhyming fourteeners," is the first sentence of Stallings's translator's note. Copley's 1977 translation, which first struck me as rather academic and musty but now, as I dip into it, reads like fresh spring water compared with A. I made it through Book 1, but I won't subject myself to the punishment of five more books of this.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |