upvote
Gilgamesh by Simon Armitage review – an ancient epic is brilliantly translated

(www.theguardian.com)

39 points

by benbreen2 days ago |
13 comments
upvoteby Sharlin5 minutes ago|
next
[-]
A very funny and informative book review of Gilgamesh (based on Andrew George’s 2003 edition/translation) by a guest author was recently published at Astral Codex Ten: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/your-book-review-the-epic-o...
reply
upvoteby busssard8 minutes ago|
prev|
next
[-]
There is a free Translation by another Author from 1924:

https://www.globalgreyebooks.com/epic-of-gilgamesh-ebook.htm...

reply
upvoteby TFNA4 minutes ago|
parent|
[-]
One isn't well served by something that old. Our knowledge of Akkadian (and the Sumerian predeccesor) has improved since the early twentieth century, as your very link notes. Some Akkadian hapaxes in Gilgamesh that baffled early translators can now be read on the basis of comparative Semitic or other work.
reply
upvoteby thaumasiotes8 minutes ago|
prev|
next
[-]
> Armitage wisely avoids rhyme, unlike some recent versions – there is no evidence of rhyme in the original text

No rhyme in the original doesn't mean there should be no rhyme in the English. Akkadian and English are different languages. English verse rhymes.

reply
upvoteby frogulis1 minutes ago|
parent|
next
[-]
> English verse rhymes

That is not universally true at all. For example, Milton's Paradise Lost, or much of Shakespeare. There are countless other examples of blank verse in English.

reply
upvoteby TFNA3 minutes ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
A significant portion of the English canon of verse doesn't rhyme, from most of Shakespeare to Milton (the latter who called rhyme "the invention of a barbarous age"), from the Anglo-Saxon era all the way to the twentieth century.
reply
upvoteby frogulis40 seconds ago|
parent|
[-]
Amusing how similar our comments are :) though yours is better, I think.
reply
upvoteby teruakohatu1 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
I have been wanting to read it. Is this the translation/interpretation I should start with?
reply
upvoteby EwanToo1 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
The Sophus Helle version is very good, I don't know if this new one will be better or just different.

https://sophushelle.com/gilgamesh/?amp=1

reply
upvoteby metalman1 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
no mention of this bieng an actual translation from the original sumerian in any of the reviews, and the truely epic and laudable journey that is bieng replaced by the sleezy term 'verse translation', ie : hollywood sceen play ready, as that is what could be the most that can be expected from a former probation officer turned the official british royal panegrist.

edit: the songs of innana and other older actual translations of gilgamesh are there for some little peeks into the sumerian world that continues to define ours in so many subtle ways.

reply
upvoteby bengillies51 minutes ago|
parent|
next
[-]
> no mention of this bieng an actual translation from the original sumerian in any of the reviews

He states very clearly in his introduction what the scope is, how it's being translated and the problems with both translating ancient text from unfamiliar cultures and translating a work that's only partially complete and how he's approached both issues

reply
upvoteby TFNA49 minutes ago|
parent|
[-]
Loads of "translators" not competent in the original language have written Introductions where they state such things. That doesn't mean their defense of their enterprise holds water.
reply
upvoteby StreamingPanda43 minutes ago|
parent|
[-]
Armitage is pretty good at this. I've read his Green Knight and King Arthur stuff. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt until after I've read it.
reply
upvoteby 46 minutes ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
deleted
reply