Classics and the Western Canon discussion

Time to start our discussion.

I found Ovid's creation story to have several fascinating elements.

First, it sounds very much like a pre-scientific description of the Big Bang. Everything in chaos, then suddenly some force, "Some god (or kinder nature)" [Martin 1.26] starts to sort things out, separating the various elements into groups, forming stars and planets.

Second, the gods did not make the universe. They are part of it, perhaps (or perhaps not) organizing it, but the creation itself was not the act of any god.

Many other things that are scientifically surprisingly sophisticated, and match very much what scientists today know or believe.

Lots more to talk about here -- let's go!

Ovid, being a Roman, used the Roman names for the gods. That may be confusing to those who are more used to the Greek names. They're essentially the same gods, though. Good enough for our purposes, since we don't have to worry about the minor differences (there are plenty of places to read about that if you care about it).

Here’s one site that will help match up the Greek and Roman names for the primary gods and goddesses.
http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/ro...

Here’s another
http://greece.mrdonn.org/greekgods/in...

Patrice wrote: "I couldn't help wondering if Ovid had access to the Bible. It seems quite possible. ."

To the Old Testament, quite possibly, but not the New. But he is telling myths which go back long before the writing even of the OT.

Of course, it's possible that he could have had access to material which both the creators of Greek/Roman myth and the Hebrew Bible writers had access to.

Almost every culture on every continent has a flood myth, and even today stories about global destruction (natural and man-made) are very popular. What purpose does this archetype serve?

Not all floods in myth are punishment, but many of them are. An element of renewal or re-birth seems to be something they have in common.

This probably belongs in a background thread, but since we're on the subject, here is a fairly extensive list of flood myths from around the world, with brief summaries:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood...

But perhaps not all flood "myths" are myths.

Geologists have known for quite a while that the Black Sea was once a large inland body of water which had a water level considerably below the sea level (of the Mediterranean).

Here's a link to a story that appeared not long ago about a discovery that supported this idea.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/200...

Of course this historic happening is not anything like the Biblical story of the flood (rain for forty days and nights, the entire earth under water, animals in an ark). But the suggestion that an occurrence such as this could be a factual basis for the Biblical flood myth is certainly interesting.

I would guess that, likewise, some of the other flood myths could be linked to historical floods or deluges.

By the way, prior to beginning the Ovid read, I checked Edith Hamilton's Mythology to see what she had to say about Ovid.

I was surprised to find only the following:

Ovid is a compendium of mythology. No ancient writer can compare with him in this respect. He told almost all the stories and he told them at great length ... In this book I have avoided using him as far as possible. Undoubtedly he was a good poet and a good storyteller and able to appreciate the myths enough to realize what excellent material they offered him; but he was really farther away from them in his point of view than we are today. They were sheer nonsense to him. He wrote

I prate of ancient poets' monstrous lies,
Ne'er seen or now or then by human eyes.

He says in effect to his reader, "Never mind how silly they are. I will dress them up so prettily for you that you will like them." And he does, often very prettily indeed, but in his hands the stories that were factual truth and solemn truth to the early Greek poets Hesiod and Pindar, and vehicles of deep religious truth to the Greek tragedians, become idle tales, sometimes witty and diverting, often sentimental and distressingly rhetorical. The Greek mythologists are not rhetoricians and are notably free from sentimentality.

(My emphases.)

That was Hamilton's view, at least in 1940.

I was struck by Ovid's seeming lack of interest in who or what ended the chaos and ordered the universe.

Kind of like "In the beginning something or other happened and here is the story of its result."

The difference in world view between the Hebrew bible and the beliefs of the Romans is made clear in this very early line. The Bible dismisses all uncertainty from its first words. The Romans, like many today, accept what they can't know and move on form there.

Thomas wrote: "Almost every culture on every continent has a flood myth, and even today stories about global destruction (natural and man-made) are very popular. What purpose does this archetype serve?"

What I think the prevalence of flood stories proves one (or both) of two things. One, that there was, in prehistoric times, a great flood which inundated much of the known world to the extent that it became embedded in myth. One possibility for this is the opening of the Straits of Gibraltar. I understand that at one time the Mediterranean was an inland lake, fed by various rivers, and that it was lower in elevation than the oceans, so that people living on its shores were living in areas that are now underwater. At some point, the Atlantic Ocean broke through the Strait and flooded these coastal villages and plains, wiping out much of civilization. Early civilizations were much more fragile than modern civilizations, living on the edge of extinction, so that such a devastating event would indeed be seen as virtually the end of life on earth.

The other is that each civilization at some point suffered its own flood of such magnitude that they virtually ended a civilization. Some of these could have been the result of failing ice dams, such as the great floods which inundated much of Washington State, known as the Missoula Floods. These floods would have wiped out almost all the populations of those regions. We have seen in Bangladesh the consequences of occasional massive floods. We have to keep in mind that at those time, there would not have been any hope of significant aid reaching flooded areas from outside, as happens in modern flooding, where rescuers arrive almost immediately with aid, supplies, expert search teams, and the like. In prehistoric times, populations would have been on their own, and if their food supplies were wiped out in a cataclysmic flood, it would like represent the effective end of their culture and civilization.

To make a long story short, I am persuaded that these flood stories do in fact represent the embedded memory of actual historic events, and the consequences for the populations were so devastating that only a very few people, embodied by sole surviving couples such as Noah and his wife, or Deucalion and Pyrrha.

Ted wrote: "By the way, prior to beginning the Ovid read, I checked Edith Hamilton's Mythology to see what she had to say about Ovid."

Interesting. Though frankly not convincing. I think he was more serious about his mythology than Hamilton gives him credit for. Her opinion can't be totally dismissed, given her expertise. But one wonders what sources she thinks are more credible than Ovid, given that he presumably had access to the same sources she had which have survived historically, and many more which have not survived and to which Hamilton therefore had no access.

Some critics think that she was just as much a popularizer as she accuses Ovid of being.

But one of the aspects of myth is that most (almost all?) myths were generated and transmitted orally, so who is to say what the "true" myth is or was? (The Greek playwrights, for example, often used quite different versions of the same myth.)

Everyman wrote: "Ted wrote: "By the way, prior to beginning the Ovid read, I checked Edith Hamilton's Mythology to see what she had to say about Ovid."

Interesting. Though frankly not convincing. I think he was ..."

I admit I have many of the same reservations. I'm sure other scholars have written something about this, maybe someone will run across another opinion either agreeing or disagreeing with Hamilton's.

H.J. Rose's Handbook of Greek Mythology is somewhat curious in this regard. My copy has a very confusing set of indices, in none of which can I even find Ovid.

However, paging through the footnotes to his chapters, it isn't hard to find references noted as "Ovid, Met. ...", which are obviously references to the Metamorphoses.

Then, in his bibliography of ancient sources, he again doesn't mention Ovid at all, presumably because he views him as a secondary rather than a primary source.

Finally, in an "Additional Note" to his Introduction, he says (after commenting on the Greek sources), "As regards the Latins, even their earliest poets draw upon the Alexandrians, and may for our purposes be counted as late Greek authors. Here again, notably in the case of Ovid, the writers' own fancy is the source of not a little."

@14 Ted -- Despite what Hamilton says in her introduction, many of the stories she includes are introduced as from Ovid. I am currently listening to her book. Your reminding me of her opening statement means I may get around to counting now. I don't think she was belittling Ovid in her statement. I'm hoping that enough in Hamilton is not from Ovid so comparisons are possible.

Lily wrote: "@14 Ted -- Despite what Hamilton says in her introduction, many of the stories she includes are introduced as from Ovid. I am currently listening to her book. Your reminding me of her opening stat..."

Lily, thanks for pointing this out.

I see what you mean. In her chapter six, "Eight Brief Tales of Lovers", all but one of the stories are credited "only", or "as best told", or at least partially to Ovid.

I would guess that this illustrates what Hamilton said (quoted above) about only using Ovid when necessary. Looks like she wanted to be inclusive of the mythological tales in her book (not just verifiably Greek tales), and was more than willing to recount tales only told by Ovid.

Everyman wrote: "Thomas wrote: "Almost every culture on every continent has a flood myth, and even today stories about global destruction (natural and man-made) are very popular. What purpose does this archetype se..."

Everyman, you seem to be referring to the so-called "Zanclean flood" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zanclea...). If so, that is believed to have occurred over 5 million years ago, hence in my opinion is an unlikely source for human flood stories.

The "Black Sea deluge" on the other hand is dated (if it occurred, and if it occurred quickly) at 5-6 thousand years ago. Thus a very believable source for flood stories in the areas bordering and near the Black Sea. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_S...)

I totally agree with you about historic happenings being the basis for most, if not all, flood myths. I would be a bit more skeptical of a "sole surviving couple". We'll never know.

Everyman wrote: "Patrice wrote: "I couldn't help wondering if Ovid had access to the Bible. It seems quite possible. ."

To the Old Testament, quite possibly, but not the New. But he is telling myths which go back..."

Ovid seems to have collected all the early stories he could find. He lived long after the writing of Genesis, and the Old Testament, because of the Jewish diaspora, was scattered all through the Roman Empire of Ovid's day. Surely he would have wanted to take a look at it.

Everyman wrote: "What I think the prevalence of flood stories proves one (or both) of two things. One, that there was, in prehistoric times, a great flood which inundated much of the known world to the extent that it became embedded in myth...

As a creation myth might it also have a psychological root in the birth experience? Babies emerge from a universe of water (or amniotic fluid) so why not the world?

I'm not sure we should look upon Ovid as a "collector" or "cataloger" of myths. Was he really attempting to do what a modern writer like Hamilton or Rose has done, in providing a learned book of mythology? My impression is that that was not his objective.

My own opinion is that he was trying to be entertaining, and to write a beautifully poetic version of certain myths that fit into the "Metamorphoses" framework. I'm not sure that the Roman audience would have cared about a "catalog" of Greek (or for that matter Jewish) myths.

Thomas wrote: "Everyman wrote: "What I think the prevalence of flood stories proves one (or both) of two things. One, that there was, in prehistoric times, a great flood which inundated much of the known world to..."

I think the flood may very well be a symbol of the passing of time. You don't need a physical flood to wipe way civilization or memory. Time (or the 2nd law of thermodynamics) alone will do.

Everyman,

Could you start a background/resources thread?

I'm wondering which translation people are reading.

Ted wrote: "I'm not sure we should look upon Ovid as a "collector" or "cataloger" of myths. Was he really attempting to do what a modern writer like Hamilton or Rose has done, in providing a learned book of my..."

The Romans were interested in all things Greek, Ted, and spent a great deal of time and energy imitating the Greeks and putting them to practical use.

Ted wrote: "Everyman, you seem to be referring to the so-called "Zanclean flood" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zanclea...). If so, that is believed to have occurred over 5 million years ago, hence in my opinion is an unlikely source for human flood stories.

The "Black Sea deluge" on the other hand is dated (if it occurred, and if it occurred quickly) at 5-6 thousand years ago. Thus a very believable source for flood stories in the areas bordering and near the Black Sea. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_S...)"

Thanks for the correction.

Nemo wrote: "Everyman,

Could you start a background/resources thread?

I'm wondering which translation people are reading."

Will do.

Patrice wrote: "Laurele, would you have any idea of the percentage of Romans who read Greek? I know the elite were sent to Greece for their education. I'm just wondering how many could have had such an opportuni..."

This Wikipedia article might be a beginning point. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greco-R...

It speaks of "the seemingly universal adoption of Greek as the language of intellectual culture and at least Eastern commerce, and of Latin as the tongue for public management and forensic advocacy, especially in the West (from the perspective of the Mediterranean Sea). Though these languages never became the native idioms of the rural peasants (the great majority of the population), they were the languages of the urbanites and cosmopolitan elites, and at the very least intelligible (see lingua franca), if only as corrupt or multifarious dialects to those who lived within the large territories and populations outside of the Macedonian settlements and the Roman colonies. Certainly, all men of note and accomplishment, whatever their ethnic extractions, spoke and wrote in Greek and/or Latin."

Also look here under "Languages" for a slightly different perspective.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Em...

Laurele wrote: "Ted wrote: "I'm not sure we should look upon Ovid as a "collector" or "cataloger" of myths. Was he really attempting to do what a modern writer like Hamilton or Rose has done, in providing a learne..."

Even myths? Since there is really no "practical use" that Greek myths could be put to (other than entertainment) I'm still not convinced that a Greek mythological catalog would have been of much interest to Romans, looking for good reading from a popular poet.

Nemo wrote: "I'm wondering which translation people are reading. "

I'm reading both Mandelbaum and Martin. I prefer the poetry of Mandelbaum, but I find Martin a bit clearer and easier to understand exactly what's going on. Plus, he has some useful supplementary material. But I go back and forth.

Patrice wrote: "Laurele wrote: "Also look here under "Languages" for a slightly different perspective.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Em..."

It sounds a little bit like French in Russia. A class ..."

Exactly.

I have the Norton Critical Edition with the Charles Martin translation. I'm not real thrilled with the translation, but I guess it will do. Every once in awhile there is a jarring term or word which throws me off.

I'm sure he has his reasons for his choice of terms & words, which I'm too ignorant to even guess at.

Ted wrote: "Even myths? Since there is really no "practical use" that Greek myths could be put to (other than entertainment) I'm still not convinced that a Greek mythological catalog would have been of much interest to Romans, looking for good reading from a popular poet. ."

The Romans adopted the deities and cults of many of the cultures they conquered, particularly the Greeks. By the time of the early Roman republic the known world was thoroughly Hellenized, thanks to Alexander, and Greek mythology became part and parcel of Roman religion. Roman culture was heavily influenced by the Greeks in art, architecture, and poetry as well. We saw the obvious influences of Homer on Virgil when we read Aeneid in this group, and I would be surprised if we don't see some in Metamorphoses as well.

Virgil used the myths to glorify Rome, and already Ovid is bringing in the Caesars.

I can't comment at the level that several people have above, but there were a few things about the flood that struck me as being worthy of note. Some may offer a possible indication of theme we might look for in the rest of the poem. Perhaps one or two raise issues others would wish to comment on.

1. The lesser gods are upset at Jove's plan to destroy the world. They fear they will be deprived of the "profits."

2. In response he promises a "better" class of humanity due to its miraculous birth. Stands in contrast to the creation story told earlier.

3. Why does he choose flood instead of fire? Other great apocalypses cone from conflagrations. (Gotterdammerung comes to mind. I'm sure there are others.) This also called to mind T.S. Eliot's modern speculation that the world will end, not with a bang but a whimper. (Which of course is how it does end for most individuals.) Why do different traditions imagine different alternatives for the end times?

4. The son of Prometheus, who stole fire from the gods, is one of the two survivors along with his cousin. Why cousins? Why are they described as "
blameless and devout?"

5. I don't like Martin's translation of the repopulation of earth. He conflates two images: sculptor of marble and fashioning them from the parts that are "moist and earthy."

6. However, I am struck that this is the reverse of most of the transformations we will read about. Here things are turned into people; later, people will be transformed to things.

I found several analogies between the Epic of Gilgamesh and biblical, Greek and Germanic mythology, so I thought as one of the oldest works, the Epic of Gilgamesh influenced a lot of cultures and myths and was also the first source of the flood myth. However the list of the flood stories convinced me the EOG couldn't be the only origin. These flood stories seem to be like dragons- they are, with little differences, in almost every culture and mythology regardless of how isolated it was.

I liked seeing Aristotle's naive abiogenesis- the new people were created from rocks, the rest of organisms arised from the wet soil itself. This is actually also a bit similar to the major scientific point of view where the life arised from the early anorganic matter. And water is the substance of life.

A little cultural reference: The Daphne story reminded me the Czech folk song also called Metamorphoses ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_KjD... ) in which a woman, to escape the man who loves her, wants to turn herself into various things (a squirrel, a star...) but he always finds a way to catch her anyway (find the astronomers who can find him the star etc.).

Magdalena -- thanks for the link to Čechomor - Proměny. I can't understand the words, but the sound alone...

Years ago I saw, at the Fogg museum in Boston, clay models for Berini's sculpture of the transformation of Daphne into the laurel tree -- one of those exhibits for which my mind can still conjure images today. Here is a nice little video featuring the completed statute, housed today in the Galleria Borghese in Rome:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3RSRr...

Note Daphne's hands turning into branches and leaves, her body into bark. The nuances are astonishing. The video does not quite conclude with an assertion that Apollo shall henceforth deign Daphne's leaves to crown Rome's heroes. But what a metaphor of thwarted amour and of fatherly protection. Poignant.

Unfortunately, the traveling exhibitions described here have both completed: http://www.harvardartmuseums.org/exhi...

Some comments on Book 1 (Martin translation)

1. Just prior to line 95 (right after the mention of Boreas) I find

Above these winds, he set the weightless aether, a liquid free of every earthly toxin.

I'm curious as to what other translators use where Martin uses "toxin". Seems like a strange word, referring to poisons in the air.

2. In note 6, Martin mentions that the Pythian games were celebrated (every 4 years) from 586 BC to 394 AD - 980 years. Wow!

3. At line 707 Martin has

Just ask yourself who finds you so attractive!
I'm not a caveman, not some shepherd boy,
no shaggy guardian of flocks and herds ...

"caveman" ?? What do others have?

Patrice wrote: "I have both the Martin and the Humphries translations. This is what I have for line 95.

"Trees had not yet
Been cut and hollowed, to visit other shores.
Men were content at home, and had no town..."

Thanks for your efforts Patrice. I think the problem is that somehow the line numbers don't correspond between the Humphries & Martin translations (I assume you are quoting from Humphries). The long quote you have in @46 appears to be from a section that Gilbert inserts a title for, The Four Ages, and which in Gilbert starts between lines 125 and 130.

But if you can find that section in Gilbert, and compare it to what you quoted, it still takes a bit of thought to see that they are translations of the same text. The general sense of the poem is there, but the order of phrases, and the words used, are very different.

To me this is a rather surprising discovery, I have never compared translations of an ancient work (especially poetry) like this before.

It sort of points out how much we are prisoners to a translator, and are who knows how far removed from the poet himself?

Patrice wrote: "It's hard to believe I'm reading the same book..

707

"The soft air stirring in the reeds made also
The echo of a sigh. Touched by this marvel,
Charmed by the sweetness of the tone he murmured
Th..."

Patrice, this quotation (I assume from Humphries) appears to come from the Gilbert section around lines 965-975. This is from the front part of the section headed Pan and Syrinx.

This section starts with several lines in quotation marks. I don't understand why the quotation marks are there. ("On the idyllic mountains of Arcadia ..."). Several lines after the beginning we find

"Wearing his crown of sharp pine needles, Pan
saw her returning once from Mount Lycaeus,
and began to say ..."
_______________There remained to tell
of how the maiden, having spurned his pleas

The quotations marks, the ellipsis, the broken line being continued on the next line without quotation marks are all printed right there in the text, exactly as they appear in the blockquote (except that I had to add "__" characters to get the continuation line spaced over to where it appears).

This almost makes it sound as if much of the text you quoted has been left out by Gilbert, where he inserted the ellipsis.

I'm sure others reading with us may have more experience in comparing translations and will offer some comments on all this.

Patrice wrote: "You can say that again! I like the Humphries translation much more than the Martin and will stick with it from now on, I think I may have found what you were looking for on a page that covers lin..."

Boy, does "without taint of earth" read a lot better to me than "free of every earthly toxin"!

Patrice wrote: "Lily wrote: "Magdalena -- thanks for the link to Čechomor - Proměny. I can't understand the words, but the sound alone...

Years ago I saw, at the Fogg museum in Boston, clay models for Berini's s..."

I think they thought of them as their stories, because they used the Roman names and variations.

EDIT: And yet, if they believed them to be true, they would have thought of them as universal rather than just natural.

Ted wrote: "Some comments on Book 1 (Martin translation)

1. Just prior to line 95 (right after the mention of Boreas) I find Above these winds, he set the weightless aether, a liquid free of every earthly tox..."

Johnston has "impurities" and "mountain dweller." The Martin is a bit jarring, isn't it?

Laurele wrote: "Ted wrote: "Some comments on Book 1 (Martin translation)

1. Just prior to line 95 (right after the mention of Boreas) I find Above these winds, he set the weightless aether, a liquid free of every..."

Yes, words like "toxin" and "caveman" have meanings or connotations nowadays that just don't fit well with poetry from Ovid's time. It's almost as if Martin is saying that this region of the heavens isn't polluted.

I do like the Johnstone offerings much better. Thanks for your comment Laurele.

Ted wrote: "Since there is really no "practical use" that Greek myths could be put to (other than entertainment) "

Oh, my goodness. I do have to disagree with you there. On all sorts of levels.

Zeke wrote: "The lesser gods are upset at Jove's plan to destroy the world. They fear they will be deprived of the "profits."

Yes, this struck me too. Which makes sense -- without anyone to worship a god, to offer it homage and sacrifice, is it really a god? Or just another creature like a mouse or ant? Isn't being worshipped a key component of being a god?

Everyman wrote: "Ted wrote: "Since there is really no "practical use" that Greek myths could be put to (other than entertainment) "

Oh, my goodness. I do have to disagree with you there. On all sorts of levels."

Well, I have to admit that my comments along these lines have quite obviously not been worded very well.

What I have been trying to say is that books like Rose and Hamilton are intended to be "reference" works in modern parlance, though of course written would the hope that readers would find them pleasurable to read also. And that further, my own conception of Ovid's poem, which may be very incorrect, is that it was not intended as a reference work; that if that had been his only or main objective, why would he take the trouble to write it in verse? And would the audience that he obviously had, really been interested in reading it, if it was not primarily intended to entertain? That is, after all, what they expected of Ovid, was it not?

I have no idea what the "all sorts of levels" refers to, but perhaps something I said above has clarified my thoughts a bit. Also, perhaps some of these levels of disagreement might end up being disagreements about what "useful" means, or encompasses?

Zeke wrote: "However, I am struck that this is the reverse of most of the transformations we will read about. Here things are turned into people; later, people will be transformed to things. "

Yes, I found that interesting, also. Rocks into people. The other examples of transformations in Book 1 are all of living objects to living objects (animals, trees, reeds). I wonder whether as the work progresses we will find any other instances of inanimate objects being turned into animate objects (or even of animate being turned into inanimate).

Patrice wrote: They say Shakespeare would not have had access to the Greeks. He must have known something about the myths though, it's too coincidental that he had people plucking out their eyes, "

Oh, heavens, Shakespeare knew Ovid intimately. As we will see as our reading progresses.

I think it was Thomas who referred some time back to a book which detailed Ovid's influences on Shakespeare. Perhaps he, or whoever posted about it, would post about it in the resources thread.

We haven't yet mentioned the Four Ages of Man. But this sounds very much like a modern anthropology summary of the development of humankind. It starts with the Golden Age, which matches Locke's view of the state of nature, man governed only by the laws of nature (when Man yet new/ No rule but uncorrupted reason knew) [the Garth/Dryden translation], man entirely a hunter-gatherer, spring the only season (life in the Rift valley, or the Fertile Crescent?), to the second age, the Sliver Age, an age of seasons (moving into the temperate zones where the seasons are more distinct?), men started finding or building dwelling places, caves or huts, and the beginnings of agriculture, to the third age, Bronze, where war is introduced on a significant scale (when people have nothing, what is the benefit of war? But when they start to have homes, crops that can be pillaged, domesticated animals that can be captured and converted, then there is a rational basis for war), to the fourth, Iron age, when man introduces seafaring (and with it pirates and coastal raiding), mining, the development of more sophisticated tools, necessary for cutting down large trees, shipbuilding, digging mines and extracting and smelting ores, and now there really are things worth going to war for, and envy and jealousy have significant bases to work on, human greed has a real opportunity to emerge full blown. And man gets to a state, as it does before the great flood of the Bible, when man is so corrupt that the only answer the gods can see is to wipe the whole race out and start over.

Everyman wrote: "Zeke wrote: "The lesser gods are upset at Jove's plan to destroy the world. They fear they will be deprived of the "profits."

Yes, this struck me too. Which makes sense -- without anyone to worsh..."

There is no king without a kingdom, but god existed before man was created, so I wonder what "profit" man brings to the gods by "worshiping". What exactly is "worship"?

Ted wrote: "...It sort of points out how much we are prisoners to a translator, and are who knows how far removed from the poet himself? ..."

Still, most times I'd rather be "prisoner" of a translator than of my own ignorance (of another language). I tend more to think of translations as "gifts."

Nonetheless, I am delighted to see more and more discussions about the impact of translators on a text and increasingly broad awareness of some of the issues associated with translations. I don't know what the status of teaching this in secondary schools is yet today, but I have seen considerable differences in awareness in the six years I have participated on boards like these. Just this week I sent a note to a publishing house chastising in tone about failure to indicate the translator. (They begged off as an error in response.)

Patrice wrote: "I hadn't realized that Locke wrote this. It sounds so much like Rousseau. And very romantic! ;-)

Jared Diamond was recently on Book TV discussing his new book about...I think he calls them tradi..."

Well Diamond is definitely wrong in the case of non-agricultural societies (ie, hunter gatherer societies) such as most Native American Indians. (I'm speaking just about his point of "land-stewardship. Hunter gatherers were certainly not above hunting some animals to extinction.) Even the Indians of the American SW who did some farming were very good at it and did it in a sustainable way.

Not only that, but the apparent "non-respect" for the land among primitive farming societies owes a lot to simple ignorance about the consequences of their actions; though it is a fair question to ask, "Even if they knew the consequences, would they have changed their non-sustainable habits?"

The answer is likely no - after all, we ourselves refuse to change non-sustainable habits - why should we think that older societies would have?

Lily wrote: "Ted wrote: "...It sort of points out how much we are prisoners to a translator, and are who knows how far removed from the poet himself? ..."

Still, most times I'd rather be "prisoner" of translat..."

Lily, I certainly agree that I too am a willing prisoner of translators.

It is a little disconcerting in this case to see how widely divergent the translations are. I guess it is because of not only very old text being translated, but even more so because it is the hardest kind of writing to translate (poetry).