Modern Language Association

Some Versions of Homer Author(s): Jorge Luis Borges and Suzanne Jill Levine Source: PMLA, Vol. 107, No. 5 (Oct., 1992), pp. 1134-1138 Published by: Modern Language Association Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/462868 Accessed: 14/05/2009 20:56
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mla. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Modern Language Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to PMLA.

http://www.jstor.org

JorgeLuis Borges

Some

Versions

of

Homer

TRANSLATOR'S INTRODUCIION

"Las versiones homericas" ("Some Versions of Homer") was first

published in 1932 in Discusion, a volume of essays reflecting Borges's principal preoccupations at the time: Argentine reality, Eastern philosophy, and literary and rhetorical issues. Doubtlessly belonging to the last category, "Some Versions of Homer" is the first of a series of pieces that question translation's marginal status and resituate the translator's activity at the center of literary discussion. These texts include "Pierre Menard, Author of the Quixote" (1939), which is one of Borges's first "ficciones" and which George Steiner, in After Babel, calls a summa of all translation theory (70). "The Translators of the 1001 Nights" (1935) and "The Enigma of Edward Fitzgerald" (1952) are among other noteworthy Borgesian discussions of the historical paradoxes and metaphysical mysteries of translation. "Some Versions of Homer" gives us a preview of what Emir Rodriguez Monegal defines as Borges's theory of the "readeras writer"demonstrated further in "Pierre Menard," "Kafka and His Precursors," and other meditations. Borges sees translation as a model for reading as well as for writing, and he prefigures reception theory in privileging the relation between the reader'scontext and the text over the now desacralized concepts of authorship and originality. Borges the reader-translatorprefers Alexander Pope's version of Homer because the English poet's "[s]peeches and spectacles" recall for himas Borges's translation of Pope's translation dramatizes-the ornate grandiosity of G6ngora. In Borges's reading, the great baroque bard revives in the Spanish language the primary grandeur of the epic poem (Borges always preferredthe epic to the lyrical) and of classical rhetoric.
? ? Copyright 1974 by EmeceEditores,S.A., BuenosAires;copyright 1988, 1989, 1991 by EmeceEditoresand Maria Kodama,Executrixof the Estateof JorgeLuis with Borges.All rightsreserved. arrangement EmeceEditoresand the Estate of By JorgeLuis Borges.

1134

Jorge Luis Borges

1135

Homer has long been a seminal topic in the history of translation studies. But why, aside from Borges's subversive drive to demythify canonical subjects, did this Argentine Anglophile choose to focus a translation discussion on Homer in English? As one who questioned the sacred cow of authorship, he certainly found a prime example in the age-old controversy over Homer's problematic identity. But Borges's love for sea epics also played a role, and hence he chose to translate samples from the British Isles since English literature, from "The Seafarer"to Joyce's Ulysses, has displayed a profound affinity with the Greek saga. Mentioning "The Seafarer"leads us to another translator much admired by Borges, Ezra Pound. One might say that Borgesadheresto the Poundian spiritof translation;despite his remote connection to the original language of the text, he captures an essence in his mannered translations,and through Pope (via G6ngora), Borges (following Pound's injunction) makes the old new. Another question we might ask is why Borges did not use existing Spanish translations or, rather, whether this piece was perhaps an excuse for him to give a virtuoso performance of different styles and eras of Homer. In 1929 Borges translated the last page of Ulysses, giving a breathtaking rendering of Molly Bloom's final breathless words. One need only compare that brief exercise with the corresponding translations by fellow scribes from the Iberian peninsula (including the "authorized"version by Jose Maria Valverde):Borges's excerpt is infinitely more playful and musical. Borges is Joyce in that text, just as Borges (is Pope) is Homer in the modest "Some Versions of Homer." Suzanne Jill Levine University of California, Santa Barbara

WorksCited
The 25 Rodriguez Monegal,Emir."Borges: Readeras Writer." Triquarterly (1972): 102-43. Babel: and New Steiner, After George. Aspects Language Translation. York:Oxford of UP, 1975.

1136

SomeVersions Homer of

PROBLEM is more essential to literature and its small mysteries than translation.A lapse of memory spurredby vanity, the fear of divulging mental processes that we can guess to be perilously pedestrian, the attempt to maintain an incalculable reserve of mysteryall cast a veil over the alleged original. Translation, in contrast, seems destined to illustrate aesthetic debates. The model to be imitated is a visible text, and the translatoris not free to follow the unfathomable labyrinths of past projects or to accept the sudden temptation of an easy solution. Bertrand Russell defined an external object as a circular system radiating many possible impressions. Given the incalculable repercussions of words, the same could be said about a text, whose translationsbecome a partial and precious document of the changes it inevitably suffers. What are the many renderingsof the Iliad-from Chapman's to Magnien's-if not different perspectives of a mutable fact, if not a long experimental lottery of omissions and emphases? (Changing languages is not necessary for this deliberatejuggling of interpretations, which can occur within a single literature.) To assume that all recombinations of elements are necessarily inferior to their original form is to assume that draft 9 is necessarily inferior to draft H-since every text is a draft. The notion of a "definitive text" belongs to religion or perhaps merely to exhaustion. Our superstition that translations are inferior-reinforced by the age-old Italian adage traduttore traditore-is the result of our naivete: all great works that we turn to time and again seem unalterable and definitive. Hume identified our habitual idea of causality with the experience of temporal succession. Thus a good film seen a second time seems even better; we tend to take repetitions for absolutes. Our first reading of famous books is really the second, since we already know them. The cliche "rereading the classics" turns out to be an unwitting truth. But how can we know now whether the statement "In a place of La Mancha, whose name I don't care to remember, there lived not long ago a nobleman who kept a lance and shield, a greyhound, and a
N

?O

skinny old nag" actually proceeded from divine inspiration? I only know that any modifications would be sacrilegious and that I could not conceive of another beginning for Don Quixote. Cervantes, however, probably dispensed with such a frivolous superstition and may not have recognized this paragraph.I, in contrast, can only reject any divergence. Since Spanish is my native language, the Quixote is to me an unchanging monument, with no possible variations except those furnished by the editor, the bookbinder, and the compositor. But the Odyssey, thanks to my opportune ignorance of Greek, is a library of works in prose and verse, from Chapman's couplets to Andrew Lang's "authorized version" or from Berard'sclassic French drama and Morris'slively saga to Samuel Butler's ironic bourgeois novel. I mention mostly English names because English writers have always gravitated toward this epic of the sea, and their many versions of the Odyssey would be enough to illustrate the history of their literature. But the rich and even contradictory variety of this library is not attributable solely to the evolution of the English language, to the original's grand proportions, or to the deviations and diverse capacities of the translators. The main cause is the impossibility of knowing what belonged to the poet and what belonged to the language. To this fortunate impossibility we owe so many possible versions, all of them sincere, genuine, and divergent. I do not know of a more controversial issue than the Homeric adjectives. Recurrent expressions such as "the divine Patroclus," "the nourishing earth," "the wine-dark sea," "the uncloven-hoofed horses," "the moist ways," "the dark blood," "the dear knees" stir our hearts at unexpected moments. At one point, there is mention of "rich noblemen who drink of the black waters of the Aesopos"; at another, a tragic king who, "unhappy in lovely Thebes, governed the Cadmeans by the gods' fatal decree." Alexander Pope, whose lavish translation we shall scrutinize later, believed that all these immutable epithets were liturgical in character. Remy de Gourmont, in his long essay on style, writes that though they must have been enchanting at one time, they are no longer so. I, however, suspect that these standard epithets were what preposi-

Jorge Luis Borges

1137

tions still are today: modest and obligatorysounds used to join certain words and on which no originality can be exercised. We know, for example, that the correct way to get somewhere is on foot and not with foot, just as the blind bard knew that the adjective to describe Patroclus was "divine." Neither usage is motivated by aesthetic reasons. I offer these conjectures with humble sobriety: our only certainty is that we cannot separate what belongs to the author from what belongs to the language. When we read in the seventeenth-century playwright Agustin Moreto (if we must read Agustin Moreto) the phrase "Pues en casa tan compuestas / ,Que hacen todo el santo dia?" 'What do these prim ladies do at home the whole damn day?' we know that the day's unholiness belongs to the language and not to the writer. Where Homer's accents lie, however, we can never know. For a lyrical or elegiac poet, this uncertainty of ours regarding authorial intentions could be devastating, but not so for the conscientious narrator of vast plots. The deeds of the Iliad and the Odyssey more than survive, even though Achilles and Ulysses have disappeared, as have what Homer had in mind by choosing them and what he really thought of them. The present state of his works resembles a complex equation that delineates precise relations among unknown quantities. What a treasure trove for the translator! Browning's most famous poem, The Ring and the Book, consists of ten detailed accounts of a single crime, given by each of those involved. The work's variety derives entirely from the characters, not from the actions, and offers contrasts almost as intense and unfathomable as those among ten just versions of Homer. The magnificent Newman-Arnold debate (1861-62), more significant than either of its participants, laboriously depicted the two main ways to translate. Newman defended the literal retention of all verbal singularities;Arnold argued for the literary, severe elimination of details that would distract or detain the reader and for the subordination of the ever-unpredictable Homer in each line to the essential or conventional Homer, whose forthrightsyntax flows and whose ideas are noble yet plain. Arnold's method pro-

vides the harmonious pleasures of uniformity; Newman's, continual little surprises. Let us consider the various destinies of a single passage from Homer, concerning Achilles's son Neoptolemus. Ulysses relays the events to the ghost of Achilles in the city of the Cimmerians, on the night without end (Odyssey 11). Buckley's literal version goes like this: But when we had sackedthe lofty city of Priam, he havinghis shareandexcellentreward, embarked unhurton a ship, neitherstrickenwith the sharp brass,nor wounded hand to hand, as oftentimes happensin war;for Marsconfusedlyraves.' Here is another literal as well as archaic rendition, by Butcher and Lang: But afterwe had sackedthe steepcity of Priam,he embarked unscathed withhis shareof the spoil,and witha nobleprize; wasnot smittenwiththe sharp he spear,and got no wound in close fight:and many such chances there be in war, for Ares rageth confusedly.2 Cowper, in 1791: At lengthwhenwe had sack'dthe lofty town Of Priam,ladenwith abundant spoils He safeembark'd, neitherby spearor shaft Aughthurt,or in close fightby faulchion's edge As oft in warbefalls,wherewoundsaredealt at Promiscuous, the will of fieryMars.3 Pope's 1725 version: And whenthe Gods our armswith conquest crown'd, WhenTroy'sproudbulwarks smok'dupon the ground, Greeceto reward soldier's her gallanttoils Heap'dhighhis navywith unnumber'd spoils. Thusgreatin gloryfromthe din of war Safehe return'd, withoutone hostilescar; Tho' spearsin iron tempestsrain'daround, Yet innocentthey play'd,and guiltlessof a
wound.4

George Chapman, in 1614: In the event, he HighTroydepopulate, madeascent To his fairship,with priseand treasure store

1138

SomeVersions Homer of

Safe;and no touch awaywith him he bore Of far-off-hurl'd lance,or of close-fought sword, Whosewoundsfor favourswardoth oft afford, Whichhe (thoughsought)miss'din war's closestwage. In close fightsMarsdoth neverfight,but rage.5 And finally Butler's 1900 version: Yet when we had sackedthe city of Priamhe got his handsomeshareof the prize money and went on board (such is the fortune of war) without a woundupon him, neitherfroma thrownspearnor in close combat,for the rageof Marsis a matterof greatchance.6 The first two-the literal versions-could move us for a variety of reasons: the reverential reference to the sacking of the city; the naive statement that one gets hurt in war; the infinite disorders of combat suddenly embodied in a single, raging god. Other, lesser pleasures are also at work: in one of the texts I have reproduced, the charming pleonasm "embarked on a ship" and, in the other, the unnecessaryconjunction in "and many such chances there be in war." The third version, Cowper's, is the most innocuous of all since it is completely literal, as far as Miltonic verse permits. Pope's rendering is extraordinary. His luxuriant language (like G6ngora's) can be distinguished by its persistent and excessive use of superlatives. For example, the hero's lone black ship becomes a fleet. Continuously subjected to this law of amplification, all the lines of Pope's text fall into two grand categories: undiluted oratory, as in "And when the Gods our arms with conquest crown'd," or visual representation, as in "When Troy's proud bulwarks smok'd upon the ground." Speeches and spectacles: this is Pope. Chapman's fiery version is also spectacular, but his mode is lyrical, not oratorical. Butler, in contrast, reveals his determination to evade all opportunities for the visual and to turn Homer's text into a sober series of news items. Which of these many translations is faithful? the readermight ask. I repeat:none or all of them. If fidelity implies conveying Homer's inventions and the bygone people and days that the poet

portrayed, none of the versions can succeed for us but all would for a tenth-century Greek. If fidelity means preserving the effects Homer intended, any one of the above might serve, except for the literal ones, whose virtue lies in their departure from current poetic practices. It is not out of the question, then, that Butler's sedate version could be the most faithful.

Translator's Notes
translations thisexcerpt of provides hisSpanish only 'Borges andthe following ones. He seeksarchaic effectsin rendering with for "Pero cuando hubimos Buckley, "hubimos," example: saqueadola alta ciudadde Priamo,teniendosu porci6ny se inc6olume embarc6 unanave,ni malen premioexcelente, trechopor el broncefiloso ni heridoal combatircuerpoa en cuerpo,como es tan comuin la guerra; porqueMarteconfusamente delira." in the againinscribes archaic, particularly hischoice 2Borges of vocabulary: ciudadde Priamounavez "Perola escarpada se ilesocon su partedel despojoy con un saqueada, embarc6 noblepremio;no fue destruido las lanzasagudas tuvo ni por en combate:y muchostales riesgoshay heridas el apretado en la guerra, confusamente." porqueAresse enloquece "Al version: fin,luegoquesaqueamos levantada la 3Borges's villa de Priamo,cargadode abundantes despojossegurose embarc6,ni de lanzao venabloen nada ofendido,ni en la por refriega el filo de los alfanjes,como en la guerrasuele dondeson repartidas heridas las acontecer, promiscuamente, del segunla voluntad fogosoMarte." inversions hyperboles and displays syntactic worthy 4Borges of G6ngora this rendition: in "Cuando diosescoronaron los de conquista armas, las cuandolos soberbios murosde Troya humearon tierra, las Grecia,pararecompensar gallardas por desfatigasde su soldado,colm6 su armadade incontables marde del pojos.Asi,grande gloria,volvi6seguro estruendo en hostil,y aunquelas lanzasarreciaron cial,sin unacicatriz tornoen tormentas hierro,su vanojuego fue inocentede de heridas." strikes lyrical a noteforChapman, Pound's favorite: 5Borges a "Despoblada Troyala alta,ascendi6 su hermosonavio,con ni acopiode presay de tesoro,seguroy sin llevar un grande rastrode lanzaque se arroja lejos o de apretada de espada, son la cuyasheridas favores concede guerra, el (aunque que que no En Marteno suele solicitado) hallo6. lasapretadas batallas, se contender: enloquece." creates prosaic a contrast here:"Unavez ocupada 6Borges la ciudad, pudocobrar embarcar partede los beneficios su el y de habidos,que era una fuertesuma. Sali6 sin un rasgunio toda esa peligrosa Ya campania. se sabe:todo esta en tener suerte."