Choosing a Translation of Iliad 1 for the Syllabus
A curriculum committee must replace its translation of Iliad 1 for 17-year-old students. Three sample renderings of the proem are on the table. A is clear prose; B is a loose iambic-pentameter version that reads smoothly but expands compressed phrases; C is a line-for-line verse translation that keeps Greek word order where possible and includes notes on formulae. The exam will ask students to analyse how translation choices shape interpretation of μῆνιν, the invocation, and oral formulaic composition. Some teachers prefer B because weaker students will finish it; others argue C is the only responsible choice. Only one translation can be set, though short parallel extracts may be used in class. The committee has one meeting to decide. The chair asks for a recommendation that is defensible to both the head of department and an external examiner.
1. Which translation would you recommend as the set text, and what criteria should dominate the decision? Justify your choice against the likely objections.
Read the worked answer
I would recommend C, not because 'literal' equals faithful, but because the exam asks students to analyse μῆνιν, the invocation and formulaic composition. A line-for-line verse with notes keeps visible the repetition, compression and word-order effects that students must discuss; B's smooth pentameters tend to domesticate and expand, which hides the formulaic economy. A is useful for comprehension but gives little purchase on poetic technique. The objections are real: C may be slower and harder. That can be managed by setting only Iliad 1, providing a glossary and using A or B for one parallel seminar. The criteria should be: transparency about the Greek, preservation of repeated formulae and epithets, register that does not archaicise beyond readability, and teachability within the time available. The committee should also ask whether the translation's notes explain choices rather than pretending to be neutral. If C is poorly glossed, a hybrid recommendation-C as set text, B as comparison-is better than choosing B alone.
2. How should the committee use the rejected translations in class without confusing students about which text is authoritative?
Read the worked answer
Use them as controlled comparisons, not as alternative set texts. For one lesson, give the same five lines in A, B and C and ask students to mark what each adds or loses: how μῆνιν is rendered, whether epithets are repeated, where enjambment is preserved, what the translator supplies that is not in the Greek. Make clear that C is the text they will be examined on and that A and B are evidence of translation as interpretation. This teaches the exam skill directly: students see that no translation is neutral. Limit the exercise to a short passage and give a checklist so weaker students are not lost. The comparison should end with a written judgement, not a vote on which version is 'best'. That way the rejected translations become objects of analysis rather than rival authorities.
3. A colleague argues that a verse translation must reproduce Homer's dactylic hexameter to be faithful. Evaluate this claim.
Read the worked answer
The claim is too strong. Metre is one element in a complex poetic system; reproducing dactylic hexameter in English often produces strained word order and false archaism, which can damage other kinds of fidelity. Fidelity includes semantic accuracy, formulaic repetition, epithet economy, pacing, enjambment, register and the effect of oral performance. A translator must decide which effects matter most for the intended reader. A line-for-line English verse that keeps the formulaic pattern may be more faithful to Homer's compositional texture than a hexameter translation that reads like a Victorian exercise. That said, metre is not irrelevant: it signals that the poem is verse and shapes expectations. The colleague's claim should be reframed: a good translation must account for metre as one constraint among others, not surrender all other criteria to it. The exam should reward students who can compare trade-offs, not those who repeat 'hexameter equals faithful'.