Printable View
Having just started reading a copy of Rex Warner’s 1960 translation of the War Commentaries of Caesar, I was wondering what the opinion of the EB team was regarding this translation, as to its accuracy of reliability. So far it’s quite fascinating, but I’d be interested in knowing more about it. Thanks for any input. :beam:
its basically a propoganda piece...but it does have a good deal of useful information nontheless
Sort of. Caesar had enough enemies in Rome that he couldn't outright lie; however, he certainly makes himself look good. A careful reader knows where Caesar is twisting things with careful language so as to obfuscate the lazy reader.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ibrahim
Indeed. Remember that there were literary hundreds if not thousands of people of all ranks in Ceasars armies that were clients of various Roman Senators and very likely wrote letters and such containing information regarding Ceasars doings. Any outright lies or over-manipulation of the truth would surely have been quickly exposed and used against Ceasar.
Just be sure to take what he says with a pinch of salt. Hot pursuits of the enemy could be anything, from one legionnaire running after them to the entire army hell-for-leather. But as long as he keeps it vague, for example, he's safe. Look for areas that could have been better elaborated but are kept rather vague.
You're asking about the translation, or the work in general?
i read his post to mean the translation - although everyone who's responded so far seems to have jumped onto the actual text...Quote:
Originally Posted by cmacq
i'd be interested in knowing about people's views on the accuracy of the translation, certainly.
Well, those of us who are cool read it in the actual Latin. :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by zooeyglass
Reviews of books are sometimes tricky to find... at least when you're looking for them. If not they're all over the place. I assume there is something at JSTOR.
It is probably pretty good so i wouldn't worry about it too much.
I've never read Warner's trans. However, I remember a Warner, R. He was a novelist. Theodotos is this your Warner?
Yes, it is. He's known for writing several novels in addition to translating works of Thucydides, Xenophon, Plutarch and Julius Caesar. Apparently he was quite a respected classical scholar. My question did refer to the translation, I already am well aware of Caesar's bias. And be honest, who could resist? :beam:Quote:
Originally Posted by cmacq
I picked up a pocket-sized paperback edition of it, and paperback editions always make me suspicious:inquisitive: Thanks for the answers everybody.
of course. coolness and reading latin have gone hand in hand for aeons. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by abou
Latin's a dead language,Quote:
Originally Posted by zooeyglass
As dead as it can be,
First it killed the Romans,
And now it's killing me!
All are dead who wrote it,
All are dead who spoke it,
All will die who learn it,
Blessed death, they've earned it! :laugh4:
It is popular nowadays to claim Caesar's bias. Yet, to the careful reader his commentaries provide a wealth of information, without which we would be very much the poorer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by abou
Abou,
Since you are so cool :yes: - could you offer up - in your opinion - the best translation of Virgil's "The Aenid". I am looking for a new edition that is English AND Latin. Preferably a translation with English on one page, Latin on the other - so as one can read the Latin and check the English (or vice versa). Much thanks.
hey, DofT, i know it is by no means a full answer to your Q, but i heartily recommend the commentary of Aeneid X by Stephen Harrison - this is perhaps a very subjective view on the commentary (given that he tutored me for 4 years) but it is a pretty stirling effort in my opinion, and very much in the vein of good latin commentaries. and done while he was still a graddie.
the austin commentary is pretty stonking too.
Well, the two big translations out there are by Fitzgerald and the other by Fagles. The thing with Fagles is that he makes a great work of English from the translations while Fitzgerald is much easier to read. Depends on what you're looking for, but both solid works.Quote:
Originally Posted by Disciple of Tacitus
As far as a dual-language book goes, the only one I can think of is Virgil by Fairclough printed by Harvard. It is very old-school 1900s, if you know what I mean, but it works. There are two volumes that cover all of Vergil's work, which is pretty awesome - especially since the Georgics is considered by some to be the best in poetry.
everQuote:
Originally Posted by abou