Agamemnon (preface-29)

Translator’s preface MAY I be permitted to chat a little, by way of recreation, at the end of a somewhat toilsome and perhaps fruitless adventure? If, because of the immense fame of the following Tragedy, I wished to acquaint myself with it, and could only do so by the help of a translator, I should require him to be literal at every cost save that of absolute violence to our language. The use of certain allowable constructions which, happening to be out of daily favour, are all the more appropriate to archaic workmanship, is no violence: but I would be tolerant for once,—in the case of so immensely famous an original,—of even a clumsy attempt to furnish me with the very turn of each phrase in as Greek a fashion as English will bear: while, with respect to amplifications and embellishments,—anything rather than, with the good farmer, experience that most signal of mortifications,

to gape for Aeschylus and get Theognis.

I should especially decline,—what may appear to brighten up a passage,—the employment of a new word for some old one—πόνος, or μέγας, or τέλος, with its congeners, recurring four times in three lines: for though such substitution may be in itself perfectly justifiable, yet this exercise of ingenuity ought to be within the competence of the unaided English reader if he likes to show himself ingenious. Learning Greek teaches Greek, and nothing else: certainly not common sense, if that have failed to precede the teaching. Further,—if I obtained a mere strict bald version of thing by thing, or at least word pregnant with thing, I should hardly look for an impossible transmission of the reputed magniloquence and sonority of the Greek; and this with the less regret, inasmuch as there is abundant musicality elsewhere, but nowhere else than in his poem the ideas of the poet. And lastly, when presented with these ideas, I should expect the result to prove very hard reading indeed if it were meant to resemble Aeschylus,

ξυμβαλεῖν οὐ ῥᾴδιος

(Frogs 931), not easy to understand, in the opinion of his stoutest advocate among the ancients; while, I suppose, even modern scholarship sympathizes with that early declaration of the redoubtable Salmasius, when, looking about for an example of the truly obscure for the benefit of those who found obscurity in the sacred books, he protested that this particular play leaves them all behind in this respect, with their

Hebraisms, Syriasms, Hellenisms, and the whole of such bag and baggage.

[*] For, over and above the purposed ambiguity of the Chorus, the text is sadly corrupt, probably interpolated, and certainly mutilated; and no unlearned person enjoys the scholar’s privilege of trying his fancy upon each obstacle whenever he comes to a stoppage, and effectually clearing the way by suppressing what seems to lie in it. All I can say for the present performance is, that I have done as I would be done by, if need were. Should anybody, without need, honour my translation by a comparison with the original, I beg him to observe that, following no editor exclusively, I keep to the earlier readings so long as sense can be made out of them, but disregard, I hope, little of importance in recent criticism so far as I have fallen in with it. Fortunately, the poorest translation, provided only it be faithful,—though it reproduce all the artistic confusion of tenses, moods, and persons, with which the original teems,—will not only suffice to display what an eloquent friend maintains to be the all-in-all of poetry—

the action of the piece

— but may help to illustrate his assurance that

the Greeks are the highest models of expression, the unapproached masters of the grand style: their expression is so excellent because it is so admirably kept in its right degree of prominence, because it is so simple and so well subordinated, because it draws its force directly from the pregnancy of the matter which it conveys . . . not a word wasted, not a sentiment capriciously thrown in, stroke on stroke!

[*] So may all happen! Just a word more on the subject of my spelling—in a transcript from the Greek and there exclusively—Greek names and places precisely as does the Greek author. I began this practice, with great innocency of intention, some six-and-thirty years ago. Leigh Hunt, I remember, was accustomed to speak of his gratitude, when ignorant of Greek, to those writers (like Goldsmith) who had obliged him by using English characters, so that he might relish, for instance, the smooth quality of such a phrase as hapalunetai galené; he said also that Shelley was indignant at Firenze having displaced the Dantesque Fiorenza, and would contemptuously English the intruder Firence. I supposed I was doing a simple thing enough: but there has been till lately much astonishment at os and us, ai and oi, representing the same letters in Greek. Of a sudden, however, whether in translation or out of it, everybody seems committing the offence, although the adoption of u for v still presents such difficulty that it is a wonder how we have hitherto escaped Eyripides. But there existed a sturdy Briton who, Ben Jonson informs us, wrote The Life of the Emperor Anthony Pie — whom we now acquiesce in as Antoninus Pius: for

with time and patience the mulberry leaf becomes satin.

Yet there is, on all sides, much profession of respect for what Keats called

vowelled Greek

— consonanted, one would expect; and, in a criticism upon a late admirable translation of something of my own, it was deplored that, in a certain verse corresponding in measure to the fourteenth of the sixth Pythian Ode,

neither Professor Jebb in his Greek, nor Mr. Browning in his English, could emulate that matchlessly musical

γόνον ἰδὼν κάλλιστον ἀνδρῶν

(Pyth. 4.123).

Now, undoubtedly, Seeing her son the fairest of men has more sense than sound to boast of: but then, would not an Italian roll us out

Rimirando il figliuolo bellissimo degli uomini!

whereat Pindar, no less than Professor Jebb and Mr. Browning,

τριακτῆρος οἴχεται τυχών

(Ag. 171). It is recorded in the annals of Art[*] that there was once upon a time, practising so far north as Stockholm, a painter and picture-cleaner — sire of a less unhappy son — Old Muytens: and the annalist, Baron de Tessé, has not concealed his profound dissatisfaction at Old Muytens’ conceit

to have himself had something to do with the work of whatever master of eminence might pass through his hands.

Whence it was,—the Baron goes on to deplore,—that much detriment was done to that excellent piece The Recognition of Achilles, by Rubens, through the perversity of Old Muytens,

who must needs take on him to beautify every nymph of the twenty by the bestowment of a widened eye and an enlarged mouth.

I, at least, have left eyes and mouths everywhere as I found them, and this conservatism is all that claims praise for — what is, after all,

ἀκέλευστος ἄμισθος ἀοιδά

(Ag. 979). No, neither uncommanded nor unrewarded: since it was commanded of me by my venerated friend Thomas Carlyle, and rewarded will it indeed become if I am permitted to dignify it by the prefatory insertion of his dear and noble name. R. B. LONDON: October 1st, 1877. Warder.Choros of Old Men.KLUTAIMNESTRA.TALTHUBIOS, AGAMEMNON.KASSANDRA.AIGISTHOS.