Most Helpful Customer Reviews
125 of 128 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Very readable, February 2, 2007
This review is from: The Aeneid (Hardcover)
There is no such thing as a "best" translation, only translations that suit one's purpose. If you want to read the Aeneid as a gripping story, Fagles's version does very well. I have just finished reading book 4, and Dido's fury, as set against the implacable higher purpose of Aeneas, has perhaps never been as vividly, even scarily, portrayed. On the other hand, it could be argued that Fagles's verse does not convey the stately or epic quality of the Latin in the way that, for instance, Fitzgerald's does. A short comparison may suffice: "sed nullis ille mouetur / fletibus aut uoces ullas tractabilis audit; / fata obstant placidasque uiri deus obstruit auris." (Vergil) "But no tears move Aeneas now. / He is deaf to all appeals. He won't relent. / The Fates bar the way / and heaven blocks his gentle, human ears." (Fagles) "But no tears moved him, no one's voice would he / Attend to tractably. The fates opposed it; / God's will blocked the man's once kindly ears." (Fitzgerald) Fitzgerald's version is closer to the Latin (other than not using the present tense), better reflects its formal nature, and achieves a Vergilian metrical effect with the three successive beats of "God's will blocked." But Fagles's free and fluid rendition is undoubtedly more engaging to the modern reader. Occasionally Fagles does introduce a modern idiom that is trite or jarring. For instance, when the sea-nymph speeds Aeneas's ship on its way in Book 10, she does so skillfully ("haud ignara modi") because she "knows the ropes". The book has a useful introduction, a few notes, and a pronouncing glossary. Fagles's postscript is, however, a tedious pastiche of quotations from previous critics and could have been omitted.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
244 of 279 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars
Mandelbaum is Still the King, November 3, 2006
This review is from: The Aeneid (Hardcover)
I got my first look at Fagles' Aeneid today. My test passage was the death of Turnus. Fagles' work is perfectly good, of course, but that wasn't the point of my looking; I wanted, instead, to see if he had improved on Allen Mandelbaum's masterful version. (I don't want a good English Virgil, I want the best English Virgil.) I'll look microscopically at word choices, but I am not a bean-counter, and the point I'm driving at here has to do with how they read and feel as poetry. 12.940, Latin flectere, Mand. "move," Fagles "sway"; 12.941, Latin infelix, Mand. "luckless," Fagles "fateful"; 12.943, Latin Pallantis pueri, Mand. "of Pallas, of the boy," Fagles "young Pallas"; 12.944, Latin straverat, Mand. "stretched," Fagles I forget exactly, something like laid low, felled, killed, etc. My judgment on these differences: Fagles' words are diffuse and lose some of Mandelbaum's admirable simplicity and directness. When he chooses to be less literal, it seems he's aiming for polish, which I don't want. No doubt he wants to avoid vulgar overliteralness--he knows that the Romans didn't feel the full specific and literal impact of every verbal stem--but instead of deepening the accuracy through attention to idiom, I feel that his choices intrude just a bit too much stuffiness between me and Virgil. Mandelbaum is passionate, his Virgil's pathos unmistakably aimed at the English reader's heart (much like his Dante). Fagles is refined, but without the crisp focus refinement needs. Mandelbaum writes a noble and sober American English that is literary in all of the good senses but none of the bad. I'll be the first to admit that these are quick and irrational prejudices speaking. I enjoy reading Homer in Greek and Virgil in Latin, and I enjoy reading these epics in English. I will say that Fagles' Virgil is way better than his Homer, where he seizes on every stately epithet and falsely tries to wring dramatic significance out of it (I prefer Lattimore: let Homer speak for himself in his own language). But I beg you, even if you loved Fagles' Homer, check out Mandelbaum's Virgil, because you may not know what you're missing. Bottom line: Anyone who thought Fitzgerald was better than Mandelbaum should give Fagles a good look, because these two versions do rival each other. But no one who appreciated what Mandelbaum achieved beyond Fitzgerald will find any reason to abandon Mandelbaum here.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
33 of 35 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Fagles and Knox do it again., December 17, 2006
This review is from: The Aeneid (Hardcover)
A great new translation. Hold onto your copy of Fitzgerald, but don't hesitate to check out this new edition. This will be my go-to copy of The Aeneid. The book has a useful map, an informative forward, and a handy glossary and list of names. It also goes a long way towards capturing the timelessness of Virgil's poem. Simply put, I enjoyed it immensely and would recommend it to any reader. If you have never read Virgil (or Homer), then you need look no further for an illuminating, essential translation.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
|
@TranslatioStud Got a gift of a huge wooden horse today, here in Troy. Just appeared outside the city gate. BTW: War going poorly. 
![[Start the discussion]](http://g-ecx.images-amazon.com/images/G/01/x-locale/communities/discussion_boards/start-new-discussion-sec._V192250339_.gif){kind=small}
