I started reading the Pope translation of the Odyssey at the suggestion of one of the Greek guides and I'm seriously...

I started reading the Pope translation of the Odyssey at the suggestion of one of the Greek guides and I'm seriously pissed off. His structure and syntax are all over the place, and I have a hard time finding a way to enjoy the writing because he's made it extremely difficult to understand what he's actually talking about. Before anyone says I'm a pleb, I've read Paradise Lost and Shakespeare and had no trouble understanding either of them. I have no idea what Pope was thinking or how to continue with this book. Very frustrated that I can't continue with the Greeks right now. Is there any way I can understand his writing better?

Even Wilde hated Pope.

The OED might help you understand the archaic words he uses tho

Pope's syntax is no more unconventional than Milton's. But, if you're really not enjoying it, then just go with one of the other popular translations (Fagles, Fitzgerald, Lattimore).

I am of the opinion that Pope's version is of such quality to make it worth your time to fully grasp its style and structure, but I understand if you have desire to.

have no desire to*

I'm not sure it's structure or what.

For example, here's the opening.

The man for wisdom's various arts renown'd,
Long exercised in woes, O Muse! resound;
Who, when his arms had wrought the destined fall
Of sacred Troy, and razed her heaven-built wall,
Wandering from clime to clime, observant stray'd,
Their manners noted, and their states survey'd.

Who is "their" referring to? This was my feeling when reading book 1, complete confusion with syntax that kept me from understanding what he was even trying to say at a fundamental level.

guessing that its the greeks? each state and their manners surveyed...

The people from island to island.

What people? Odysseus's fellow soldiers? The former inhabitants of Troy? I think his adherence to the form of the poem is so limiting that he's giving up comprehension in some points such as this.

"Their" refers to "men of many countries", though it lacks the antecedent unless you already know how the poem goes, as his contemporaries probably did.

Still, the syntax is really not that difficult, I don't know what the problem is. I think his Iliad is more complex syntactically.

lol no wonder you're having so much trouble.
Just go to barnes and noble and get a Fagles or something.

What do you mean? And while I am having a lot of trouble, I'd prefer to know if I'm doing something wrong so I can learn from the experience. Many people say it's good, and I can see some of its quality, but I'm not digging the way he structures. I've also spent money on my copy and I'd prefer not to have to buy another.

You mean Homer's conteporaries or Pope's? I already know the general story of mythology as I was advised to do beforehand, but that hasn't seemed to be helping much. It's the little details that are constantly tripping me up and making me unable to appreciate the greater work. I want to understand, I want to appreciate it, but I can't see what's going wrong.

>I've also spent money on my copy and I'd prefer not to have to buy another.

Buy another, easier translation and read it. Read Pope on your second or third read.

But was Pope then not meant to be for a first-time reading of the Odyssey? That's what I'm beginning to think from That you're basically meant to understand not just the plot, but what each individual line is supposed to mean through prior experience. Because if that's the case I definitely feel cheated. The translation would truly be completely derivative and unable to be appreciated on its own.

Pope should definitely not be your first read of the Odyssey. It's not that it can't be appreciated for what it is, but it's not a very literal translation. It doesn't follow Homer's choice of words very closely and it doesn't sound like Homer. I have consulted the birds about your fate, friend, and I clearly see another trip to the book store.

>"""""lit"""" user can't understand simple syntax
>"complete" confusion

Jesus Christ, English has fallen so far.
Nigger-tier language these days.

Pope's, evidently. The original Greek says "πολλῶν ἀνθρώπων", which is a genitive masculine plural, and means "of many men". What the poem is saying there is that Odysseus, in his indigence, learned about the customs and cities "of many men" of the the countries he visited. I think from the context you can deduce that too. I mean, think: how can you possibly ask if "their" refers to Ulysses's companions or to the Troyans, when the text clearly says that in his wanderings he learned through observation about many different climes?

Pope was not meant for a MODERN first-time reader with no prior knowledge of the poems, mainly because, as a translator, he wrote for an specific audience: the readers of his time and country. But really, just from looking at those verses it just isn't difficult. It's quite clear what the poet is saying. I don't even understand what you mean by that rubbish about it being "completely derivative and unable to be appreciated on its own", when you yourself are neither the intended audience nor a knowledgeable reader.

Buy another translation and skim through it before picking one. Be a smart buyer and reader, for fuck's sake, don't just blindly obey a half-assed chart you found on Veeky Forums.

Should've read Fagles.

To add to this: get the Fagles or Lombardo and have a great time. Or get the Lattimore if you can be a bit more patient with yourself. Get the revised Rieu if all else fails.

t. a pleb

Why are you reading the Odyssey without reading the Iliad before? What translation of the Iliad did you read?

> was Pope then not meant to be for a first-time reading of the Odyssey

Almost definitely not. That's a recurring criticism of the Greek chart on the left in the OP pic.

>is there a way I can understand his writing better

Yes, for starters try dialing down the autism.
Getting mad because you can't min/max your Odyssey translation makes you sound like a child. It's fucking poetry dude, try reading it aloud and listen to the music instead of trying to autistically analyze it line by line. Fucking unclench.

Well like you said, the word he used was originally "of many men." How would I know that unless I had already read a separate version of the Odyssey beforehand? This isn't something like using figurative language; he deliberately chose an unclear word for some reason, probably to maintain the form of the poem, yet this also makes it difficult to actually understand what he's literally saying.

> I mean, think: how can you possibly ask if "their" refers to Ulysses's companions or to the Troyans, when the text clearly says that in his wanderings he learned through observation about many different climes?
That's the problem. It doesn't say Ulysses did that. The text makes a sudden switch from talking about "him," Ulysses destroying Troy, to "they," who isn't described at all. Since some Trojans did survive, I think it would be fair to say that they could be the ones that experienced the various climes too.

And anyway, the only reason I followed this chart was because I came looking for advice earlier, and everyone on Veeky Forums just said to stop fucking around and procrastinating and start reading the books on the chart.

Thanks, I will probably be getting Fagles anyway since that's the other option on the chart and I've heard it was good too. At least I can help people to not make the same mistake I did.

Oh no I did read the Iliad first. And while I enjoyed it a lot, I ended up getting the Barnes & Nobles translation by Ennis Rees, whihc I haven't seen mentioned anywhere else.

I could really appreciate the way lines sounded. But when you can't literally understand the ideas being described due to syntax, that's where I draw the line.

>I could really appreciate the way lines sounded. But when you can't literally understand the ideas being described due to syntax, that's where I draw the line.

There's literally nothing wrong with the syntax, you're just dumb.
You posted the first 6 lines. The poem is hundreds of pages long. You barely scratched the surface, you didn't even make it to "the ideas." You're getting hung up on minutaie. and if it wasn't already clear enough what was being referred to, it probably would have become clear a few lines further. This is what I meant by dialing down the autism.
But I suppose it's fair enough for you to draw the line at the boundaries of your own intelligence.

Yeah my bad, I meant diction instead of syntax. I actually did read about halfway through book 1 before I had to stop, but from my experience it just became more unclear. As many other posters said, the book is written with the understanding that non-literal language can be used because the reader will be familiar with a more accurate version of the text.

If you want, feel free to point out exactly where that instance of "their" is clarified to mean "Ulysses' men" within the chapter. Until then, "you're dumb" isn't an argument.

>That's the problem. It doesn't say Ulysses did that. The text makes a sudden switch from talking about "him," Ulysses destroying Troy, to "they," who isn't described at all. Since some Trojans did survive, I think it would be fair to say that they could be the ones that experienced the various climes too.

No, that's not what happens. In all the lines you posted the subject of the sentence is still Ulysses. The verbs "stray'd", "noted", and "survey'd" all refer to Ulysses. "Their" is an adjective. Ulysses did all those things, and the text only introduces they as the owners of the things he observed. The problem is not the syntax. The problem is that you are a blithering idiot who can't even understand basic subject-verb agreement in the English language. What you speculate about the Trojans is pure bullshit. It's not "fair to say", it's just mental gymnastics.

You are still not understanding. "Their" does not refer to Ulysses's men. It refers to other people he encountered in his travels. You didn't even understand what was explained to you in clear, modern English here. How do you expect to understand Pope?

"You are an idiot" is clearly a valid argument here.

Just get another translation. And think before you buy another book.

Introduces them***

Holy shit dude, "their" doesn't mean his men.

Wandering from clime to clime, observant stray'd
Their manners noted, and their states survey'd

He traveled through various "climes" and observed the manners and states of those various climes.

Look I get it you're not used to reading 18th century English but you really ought to try a LITTLE harder before you think you've arrived at a reasonable assessment of someone's work. This entire thread is pure arrogance on your part.

American teenager detected

The chart is shit. Pope's translation is known to be very liberal, though artistically successful, and isn't a good starting point. Also, his Odyssey isn't even his, after the success of Iliad he wanted to finish the translation of Odyssey as soon as possible so he got two other guys to help him. In the end he personally translated just one half of the poem.

How about you just don't fucking read Pope.
>the preferred translation is Pope
said no one

My preferred translation is Lattimore, because it's aesthetically superior and more literal (not an accident), but Chapman and Fagles are okay too.

Don't feel like you should read Pope. No one should have to read Pope.

Again, where was I supposed to get that from? I took "their" to mean "men of many countries" as said because I Ulysses's men were in fact princes and kings of different kingdoms. It's interesting that you decided to take up that misunderstanding and assign it to me instead of the person that originally posted it.

And arrogance is a pretty retarded assessment of the point of this thread since the intent behind was to state that I'm having trouble understanding something, and asking others for help to learn what I'm doing wrong.

Oops meant to link to as well.

We have 3 different translations for what it might be, yet everyone addresses me instead of the people asserting what the translation meant. Pretty embarrassing.

But it's confirmed that he actually meant "men that he encountered in his travels through different countries."

Fagles:
Sing to me of the man, Muse, the man of twists and turns
driven time and again off course, once he had plundered
the hallowed heights of Troy.
MANY CITIES OF MEN HE SAW AND LEARNED THEIR MINDS,
many pains he suffered, heartsick on the open sea,
fighting to save his life and bringing his comrades home.

>reading a translation of the Odyssey
Don't fucking bother, either learn Greek or read the Wikipedia page instead.

upvoted

RAD
A
D
Now tell me user, how much years have you devolved to greek before having any sensibility ?

>It's interesting that you decided to take up that misunderstanding and assign it to me instead of the person that originally posted it.

Yeah, because there is no way you could get lost in the cacophony of voices in Veeky Forums, right? You are a fucking idiot.

>yet everyone addresses me instead of the people asserting what the translation meant. Pretty embarrassing.

Because what the translation meant has already been addressed, yet you are still defending your own incompetence as a reader and as a buyer. That is waht's more embarassing about this thread.

>But it's confirmed that he actually meant "men that he encountered in his travels through different countries."

That's what everyone has been telling you since the beginning, you mouth-breather. You are just too much of an idiot to undersand.

I disagree. From the beginning, I've been told "men of many countries." That description can fit multiple people within the narrative: Odysseus's soldiers, or the people of the countries Odysseus visits. It's okay to admit that you're wrong.

Don't read Pope, get something recent. It might still be difficult, it takes a while, so make sure it has ample annotations, and dont give up.

Nope, you are in the wrong here. Do yourself a favor and stop posting.

Honestly, what is difficult about this?

Pope had a great literary mind, by the way. Meaning was laid dense and thick in every line, and his mastery of certain forms is such that its equal is hard to find.