It's not a reproach to say that I found the content to greatly outshine the form here. W.S. Merwin has taken the only rational approach in translating the Middle French verse into prose. My own views on translation into verse are well documented, namely that it is more often than not heresy. I could have wished that the editor/translator gave the reader a little more insight into the beauty of the original, explicating some of the more notable passages, drawing attention to certain linguistic features, or even applying some line breaks. Admittedly, however, such would have been a pale reflection, and I do not fault him for instead focusing entirely on what is, after all, the real star of the test: the narrative.
Having years ago read and been moved by Bulfinch's parallel account, I found this a welcome elaboration on one of the most neglected stories in Western Literature. I had forgotten how compelling the characters were, and how riveting the tale. How is it possible that we have not a single modern adaptation of the tales of Charlemagne? It has all the ingredients of a runaway hit: love, blood, betrayal, revenge, valor, honor, the only thing missing is a wisecracking sidekick or monkey in a dress, either of which would be easy enough to add. Can't you picture the scene of Roland and Oliver's epic duel, during which they are revealed to each other? "I yield me." sayeth the one. "I am defeated" echoeth his companion. And if the show be aired on Showtime, they proceed to make sweet, gay love right on the battlefield. Not a dry eye in the house, I assure you.
Thursday, June 05, 2014
Monday, June 02, 2014
2 Peter
1:1 already we find a divergence from the first book claiming to be written by Peter, namely his self-appellation.
1:4 Although the subject of the exhortation is similar to that in 1 Peter, I find the tone markedly different. Less oratical.
1:7 What is meant by "godliness" here. I'd be interested to know the original Greek. One normally would say it refers to goodness, self-control, etc., but as it is here distinguished from those other characteristics, it must be referring to some other, more specific attribute.
1:!4 If this letter was indeed written after Peter's death (as most scholars believe, based on its seeming reference to later letters of Paul), then this verse is not a gentle fiction, but a rather shameless falsehood.
1:20 I find this argument hard to support. If no prophecy is subject to interpretation, then why are some of them so darned opaque?
2:4 The Greek here is Tartaros, not Hades, and the translation as "hell" seems rather misleading.
2:6 Here is a hint about what "Peter" exactly means by godliness. He doesn't say what it is, but that it is whatever Sodom and Gomorrah were not: hospitable, chaste, mild.
2:10 aaaaaaand there it is. Depraved lust and contempt for authority, these were the ungodly acts of Sodom and Gomorrah. Although I for one and hard pressed to think of a way that submissiveness is in any way displayed by the divine figure.
2:12 Whoa whoa whoa, the implication here is that not only will the ungodly be destroyed, but also the irrational animals. That's the first I've heard of such a thing.
2:17 what exactly is a "waterless spring"? A hole?
2:18 And here's the bombast that I remember from 1 Peter. Markedly different from the letters attributed to Paul, and thoroughly demagogic.
3:8 a rather convenient algebra. By this reasoning, people can always be saying that the end is coming "any day now," and still be correct whilst saying nothing of value.
In general, while I find even Paul's most inflammatory doctrines to be based on logic and reason, in both of the books attributed to Peter I find the aroma of a modern day televangelist, one who relies on oratorical tricks to reach his audience.
1:4 Although the subject of the exhortation is similar to that in 1 Peter, I find the tone markedly different. Less oratical.
1:7 What is meant by "godliness" here. I'd be interested to know the original Greek. One normally would say it refers to goodness, self-control, etc., but as it is here distinguished from those other characteristics, it must be referring to some other, more specific attribute.
1:!4 If this letter was indeed written after Peter's death (as most scholars believe, based on its seeming reference to later letters of Paul), then this verse is not a gentle fiction, but a rather shameless falsehood.
1:20 I find this argument hard to support. If no prophecy is subject to interpretation, then why are some of them so darned opaque?
2:4 The Greek here is Tartaros, not Hades, and the translation as "hell" seems rather misleading.
2:6 Here is a hint about what "Peter" exactly means by godliness. He doesn't say what it is, but that it is whatever Sodom and Gomorrah were not: hospitable, chaste, mild.
2:10 aaaaaaand there it is. Depraved lust and contempt for authority, these were the ungodly acts of Sodom and Gomorrah. Although I for one and hard pressed to think of a way that submissiveness is in any way displayed by the divine figure.
2:12 Whoa whoa whoa, the implication here is that not only will the ungodly be destroyed, but also the irrational animals. That's the first I've heard of such a thing.
2:17 what exactly is a "waterless spring"? A hole?
2:18 And here's the bombast that I remember from 1 Peter. Markedly different from the letters attributed to Paul, and thoroughly demagogic.
3:8 a rather convenient algebra. By this reasoning, people can always be saying that the end is coming "any day now," and still be correct whilst saying nothing of value.
In general, while I find even Paul's most inflammatory doctrines to be based on logic and reason, in both of the books attributed to Peter I find the aroma of a modern day televangelist, one who relies on oratorical tricks to reach his audience.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)