[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 2.20 MB, 1200x1524, 1200px-Pope_Francis_South_Korea_2014.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19381044 No.19381044 [Reply] [Original]

Is Pope's Iliad trustworthy? Or does he Christianize it? It's supposed to be a pagan work.

>> No.19381051

>>19381044
Pope's translation was my favorite desu, haven't read it in like a decade. First read was Fagles. Read Lattimore third, didn't like either much.

>> No.19381053

>>19381044
God I hate this faggot.

>> No.19381555
File: 49 KB, 720x707, 318947137894.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19381555

>Reading a text from antiquity
>Translator renders Jupiter/Zeus as "God" with a capital "G"

>> No.19381561

>>19381044
Depends whether it's ex cathedra or not

>> No.19381564

Pope's is fine. It's beautiful.

>> No.19381719

>>19381044
Almost all of the manuscripts of texts from antiquity that still survive today were preserved and copied by medieval monks.

>> No.19381978

>>19381555
There's nothing intrinsically wrong with that. The word "God" isn't limited to a purely Christian interpretation. Zeus is cognate with Deus anyway.

>> No.19382056

>>19381978
It would be better if they used the neutral term "god" or just Jupiter, I'll have to check but I don't recall deus, sator and other terms for Jupiter being capitalised in the Latin or treated as proper nouns but sometimes it might be so. However I find it to be mostly a problem in philosophical texts where they are referencing Jupiter/the divine and the (presumably christian) translator has shamelessly refitted it all as referring to "God", which even if not intrinsically wrong as you say, it definitely has potent Christian connotations which is not what the original term relates to. A neutral term like 'the divine', 'that god' or just the name of the deity being referred to would be more accurate

>> No.19382082
File: 60 KB, 623x490, 1044EE74-943A-4520-B1D3-AC551E03303D.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19382082

I hate it aesthetically, I can’t stand the rhyming

>> No.19382086

>>19382056
Lower case letters were invented in the medieval period.

>> No.19382157

>>19382086
Indeed suppose I'm just basing the first point off how the Latin text has been edited since for modern convenience but the rest still stands

>> No.19382975

>>19382157
While the other guy is correct that lower case was a medieval invention, If I am not mistaken the tradition of referencing non monadic gods with a lower rather than upper case was also a thing. But again, you could see that as a monotheistic addition, however, I think it works well in a broader interpretation of the common use of proper nouns to refer to More abstract/fundemental things. Like how nature and Nature are often differentiated between the purely biological in the former case, and more generally primordial in the latter. But even thats just a literary convention. So thats up for inquiry. Since the anceint gods could often be used in the capacity of fundemental forces as well as particular flawed entities.

On your other point about christian connotations of using the term "God" of jupiter/the divine, I think its important to not that the use of God singular was something that I know at least the latter greco-romans did rather commonly when referring to the general principle of the divine. You can see it quite a bit in Cicero, and to a lesser degree in plato and aristotle. But again could be seen as somewhat anachronistic for the Illiad, though I do think some level of artistic license in that instance isn't the worst.

>> No.19383167

>>19382975
>On your other point about christian connotations of using the term "God" of jupiter/the divine, I think its important to not that the use of God singular was something that I know at least the latter greco-romans did rather commonly when referring to the general principle of the divine. You can see it quite a bit in Cicero, and to a lesser degree in plato and aristotle. But again could be seen as somewhat anachronistic for the Illiad, though I do think some level of artistic license in that instance isn't the worst.
Yes I think certainly in the philosophical realm you can see how the pantheon religion of the masses gets refined into a single platonic divine essence, and as you say in Cicero and the Hellenistic schools the singular is used quite often to stand in for the idea of the single divine essence. Yeah I agree it's not a terrible sin and it does convey the singleness of the concept but it just feels so-associated with the God of the Bible that it feels to me like the translation pollutes the pure Hellenistic/Platonic idea of the divine with all the Christian connotations through the ages, although this may be an issue that others don't have with the term "God", I'm not sure

>> No.19384140

>>19381044
>jesuit
stay away of it

>> No.19384150

>>19381044
I don't think Pope Christianises the Iliad significantly, but it's definitely not a completely 100% as faithful as possible translation. But if you want to read a version that's great English poetry then Pope is the only option.

>> No.19384159

>>19384140
What's wrong with Jesuits?

>> No.19385255

>>19384159
>Tradcath LARPers hate them because Jesuits have always been a voice of liberal reform in the church in order to keep up with the changing, increasingly secular world.
>Protestants hate them because Jesuits were *literally* created to meet the Prods on the intellectual battleground of the liberal arts and humanistic debates in the 16th Century, which led to assdevastation among the Protestants from the 17th to the 19th centuries.
>Liberals hate them because they see them as Crypto-Liberals pretending to be Liberal to keep the Catholic Church & Rome's influence relevant to the modern world.
>Ditto Marxists. They see Jesuit liberalism as a tactical move by the Catholic Church to remain relevant.
>Atheists hate them because Jesuit education does the unforgivable heresy of showing that you can be a intellectually-inclined without being atheist.
>Monarchists hate them because Jesuit advisors historically used to have the ear of many European monarchs, and Monarchists think they are the tools of Rome to influence their royal dynasties.
>Nationalists hate them for the same reason Monarchists do.
>Fascists hate Jesuits for their liberal inclinations and criticism of human rights abuses (a Fascist hobby).
>Non-Christians hate them because Jesuits are successful missionaries of the Catholic faith who btfo local intellectuals in debate. See: China. Literally all of Chinese Catholicdom owes its existence to Jesuit missionary & intellectual activity there during the Ming & Early Qing Dynasties.
>Other Catholic orders hate them because in their missionary activities, Jesuits can be super flexible to the point of heresy (see: the Chinese Rites Controversies).
They're too based for the Archons' bitchboys not to seethe at their existence.

>> No.19385847

>>19385255
Thanks anon, that was much more informative than the mix of dry histories and deranged schizoposts I've found by searching.