The "scholarization" of literature; reading to be seen reading etc.

Eliot Rosewater

I recently read the Penguin Classics E.V. Rieu translation of Homer's Odyssey. It's an excellent translation of an excellent tale! Scholarly stuffiness was seemingly banned from within the translation: it's all about the compelling story and the excellent characters and having one appreciate it from the perspective that, I think, many people would have appreciated it in c. 700 BC. The literary elements of the story are highly interesting too, and are mentioned in the introductions. But this translation was mainly made for people to actually enjoy it.

So, excited, I bought a rake of classics including the Iliad, which was again translated by Rieu but revised in the 2000s by Peter Jones. And I was immediately disappointed. From Jones' introduction it was clear his intentions were far different from Rieu's; here was someone trying to produce a studious edition. Within the introductions he lists many statistics - there are 15,000 lines in the Iliad; 5,500 describe battle scenes; 6,000 describe the 666 speeches ... blah blah blah. I wants Achilles fighting the Trojans! I want Zeus battling his fellow gods and amending fate! I don't want bloody statistics!

To top it, every chapter in the text itself is preceded by a plot summary, and every page contains a note on the margin briefly describing what's occurring at that point. Unlike a tough book, like Plato's Republic (where this is helpful), here it just interrupts the exciting story. It seems that Mr. Jones doesn't prioritise actually enjoying the Iliad; he seems to consider it more important that you can reference passages while trying to impress guests at a dinner party or some girls in Copper Face Jacks.


tl;dr Long story short: is this approach to the Iliad reflective of a modern society that values being seen reading more than actual reading itself? Does it play towards an audience that isn't interested in actually enjoying what they read but that just want to be "more knowledgeable" and "better read"? Or am I somewhere between a melodramatic prom-queen and a grumbling grandfather, decrying the decline of the standards of Western Civilisation that never existed in the first place?

Well
I don't think it has anything to do with "reading to be seen reading"
the illiad was on our classical studies course at school and it sounds like that edition might be useful for people studying it and referencing it and not reading it so much for pleasure. I think people could be reading it for different reasons, and it's not necessarily pure pleasure vs putting on a front.
I could imagine it'd be useful for any number of courses where you're studying that old greek literature in general

I think I understand where you're coming from, and it could be used in the way you mean, but I don't think that was the original intention

A full third of it was about battle scenes? and another third about speeches?
that's pretty interesting. Rieu is a prose translation, right?

The Scientician

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

tl;dr Long story short: is this approach to the Iliad reflective of a modern society that values being seen reading more than actual reading itself? Does it play towards an audience that isn't interested in actually enjoying what they read but that just want to be "more knowledgeable" and "better read"? Or am I somewhere between a melodramatic prom-queen and a grumbling grandfather, decrying the decline of the standards of Western Civilisation that never existed in the first place?

The majority of people who pick up the Iliad nowadays are studying it, so an edition primed for study makes economic sense. The Iliad is studied at secondary level in Britain and Ireland (and probably further afield) so such scholastic editions make eminent sense and are indeed popular with schools.
I don't think people who want to be seen reading it are the target audience and I don't even know if such people really exist. There are certainly "pretentious" books out there but the classics, in any edition, aren't among them.

Enkidu

I guess it's just a pity that most editions of classics aren't "books" as such, but almost research manuals. Although this makes sense as bluewolf and The Scientician said.

However I think one must carefully distinguish between scholarly notes and footnotes that must be added to make the work somewhat comprehensible. Often these writers are from cultures completely alien to our own and often their values are quite different. However, more importantly, their imagery is quite different to ours. For example in one of the early versions of the Epic of Gilgamesh, prior to the standard one, Gilgamesh meets Enkidu after the later had died. Anyway, events happen and eventually a bright sun burst over the waves heralding the dawn of a new day. To us, this would have a positive meaning possibly or would signify a new beginning, or other such things. However in Sumeria it was evocative of nostalgic loss. Without the footnotes I would have gotten a total incorrect impression of the scene, in fact almost the opposite of what was intended.

This happens quite a lot with Homer. It's obvious in some reviews where, even though people are heaping such gushing praise on him, it's obvious that they've read him as an English author with somewhat modern concerns about the nature of man. Where as Homer was often more concerned with Mycenaean primacy and the authority of Zeus. In fact this often comes from the same people who give Homer the title of "the father of Western literature", e.t.c.

I think the trick is to find books that readable, but contain relevant footnotes or prefaces to aid in your understanding. Some recommendations, translators given, not original authors:
The Epic of Gilgamesh - Andrew George
The Tale of Genji - Royall Tyler
The Odyssey - Richmond Lattimore or Robert Fitzgerald (not Fagles!)

Eliot Rosewater

I stuck in the "seen to be reading" bit to make the thread more enticing. The argument that people study Homer rather than read for pleasure has merit but this is the Penguin Classics edition we're talking about. I don't think E.V. Rieu intended for the series to be primarily study aids; I think he aimed for ordinary people to appreciate classic literature. This is why I feel that the revised edition is not in the translation's spirit. And, my disappointment is compounded because, if Penguin Classics aren't going to do a "Homer for pleasure" edition, who are? There are many many scholarly editions out there; one for "the people" would be nice!

In my prom-queen melodramatic paranoia, I was seeing a link between this and what I see as a kind of trend to study things rather than enjoy them. We have, for instance, the "Oxford Short Introduction to Classics". It's worth seriously asking: why do people read this book? Does Homer exist to be technically scrutinised and culturally contextualised? Or to be actually enjoyed? I think it's worth asking why many lay-readers place primacy in gaining "facts" about a subject rather than just first digging in and actually enjoying it.

Eliot Rosewater

bluewolf wrote: »

A full third of it was about battle scenes? and another third about speeches?
that's pretty interesting. Rieu is a prose translation, right?

Yup. That statistical analysis referred to the original Greek.

Enkidu wrote: »

However I think one must carefully distinguish between scholarly notes and footnotes that must be added to make the work somewhat comprehensible.

I totally agree with this. Good editions and notes really elucidate the text. However there is a point at which such notes just become scholarly additions, designed not to aid comprehension and appreciation but rather to deliver non-essential technical facts. It goes from being an edition designed to help the read the book correctly and in an informed manner to one that is designed to be studied. In the case of the Iliad, the in-line notes are merely plot summaries which clearly aren't necessary for someone who is just reading the Iliad for pleasure.

Denerick

Effectively people read on two levels:

1) For pleasure.

2) For intellectual stimulation.

Often, 1 + 2 combine, but sometimes they are deliberately seperate. With something like the Iliad there really are two possible motivations at work here. You can either enjoy a cracking good read, one of the stock pieces of literary canon, or you can exploit the opportunity to learn more about Ancient Greek civilisation, ancient literary techniques, epistomology etc.

If you are looking for a cracking good read then seek out the translated version that aims to provide that. If you're looking for a more scholarly version, which aims to contextualise, decipher, analyse and perhaps explain some of the content, then go for the scholarly version. I don't think its particularly fair to create an antagonism like this.

Why can't we just, get along?

old gregg

I read some of the classics as a teenager and loved the E.V. Rieu translation of Homer's Odyssey, indeed I found myself looking for his translations of other classics at the time. He made them come alive for me and in part prompted me to study Litt/Phil many years later as a mature student.

Eliot Rosewater

Denerick wrote: »

If you are looking for a cracking good read then seek out the translated version that aims to provide that. If you're looking for a more scholarly version, which aims to contextualise, decipher, analyse and perhaps explain some of the content, then go for the scholarly version. I don't think its particularly fair to create an antagonism like this.

In fairness, this has been my point. There are loads of scholarly editions out there. Penguin Classics are designed to a little less about the scholarship - particularly the Rieu books. This is why I was disappointed that the latest edition took such a turn.

Denerick wrote: »

Why can't we just, get along?

Because you're wrong and I'm right - simple as.

scriba

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

In fairness, this has been my point. There are loads of scholarly editions out there. Penguin Classics are designed to a little less about the scholarship - particularly the Rieu books. This is why I was disappointed that the latest edition took such a turn.

Although I haven't seen that edition of the Odyssey, it sounds to me like it does go beyond the usual remit of Penguin Classics. Like you, I think the purpose for Penguin Classics publishing this material is to make it readable first and foremost. I have a few editions of early medieval hagiographical works published in that run, and I have to say they are excellent translations supplemented by decent scholarship in the endnotes, which are focused on geographical setting, major themes and brief historical sketches of people and places that pop up within the narrative. Certainly not intrusive stuff. Perhaps Jones missed the point in his edition.