At 09:34 AM 10/16/98 -0500, Randi Eldevik wrote: >I can't agree with the recommendation of Dryden. Anyone who would >translate Latin "refulgens" by the English inkhorn term "refulgent" is not >doing his job conscientiously. "Refulgent" does not have the same >descriptive force for English readers that "refulgens" had for ancient >Romans. That's just a single example, but it is symptomatic of the >general deficiencies in Dryden's translation.
I'm with Randi on this one. The Latinisms don't bother me, but the couplets do: not because I don't like rhyme, but because Dryden's couplets tend to reduce everything that's said or done in the poem to a pithy little epigram; that works for some of the Eclogues (and even some of the Georgics), but for the Aeneid it's just wrong, wrong, wrong. But I am eager to be instructed: would someone who does like Dryden's translation care to say a few words on its behalf? (Simon?) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- David Wilson-Okamura http://www.virgil.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] University of Chicago Online Virgil discussion, bibliography & links ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- To leave the Mantovano mailing list at any time, do NOT hit reply. Instead, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message "unsubscribe mantovano" in the body (omitting the quotation marks). You can also unsubscribe at http://virgil.org/mantovano/mantovano.htm#unsub
