Make your own homer
HOMER BUSH Meme Generator - Imgflip
The Fastest Meme Generator on the Planet. Easily add text to images or memes.
No SpacingTop and BottomTopBottom
Auto ColorWhiteBlack
10%15%20%25%35%50%75%100%
Popular
My
loading...
Blank
View All Meme Templates (1,000s more...)
← Background color. Click to change.
Note: font can be customized per-textbox by clicking the gear icon.
Effect (beta):
NoneSmart Posterize (best on real photos)Meme BorderJPEG DegradeJPEG Min QualityBlurSharpenMedian FilterMedian Filter + Sharpen
Pro-tip: If you , your captioned memes will be saved in your account
Featured HOMER BUSH Memes See All
What is the Meme Generator?
It's a free online image maker that lets you add custom resizable text, images, and much more to templates. People often use the generator to customize established memes, such as those found in Imgflip's collection of Meme Templates. However, you can also upload your own templates or start from scratch with empty templates.
How to make a meme
- Choose a template. You can use one of the popular templates, search through more than 1 million user-uploaded templates using the search input, or hit "Upload new template" to upload your own template from your device or from a url. For designing from scratch, try searching "empty" or "blank" templates.
- Add customizations. Add text, images, stickers, drawings, and spacing using the buttons beside your meme canvas.
- Create and share. Hit "Generate Meme" and then choose how to share and save your meme. You can share to social apps or through your phone, or share a link, or download to your device. You can also share with one of Imgflip's many meme communities.
How can I customize my meme?
- You can move and resize the text boxes by dragging them around. If you're on a mobile device, you may have to first check "enable drag/drop" in the More Options section.
You can add as many additional text boxes as you want with the Add Text button. - You can customize the font color and outline color next to where you type your text.
- You can further customize the font for each text box using the gear icon next to the text input. Imgflip supports all fonts installed on your device including the default Windows, Mac, and web fonts, including bold and italic. Over 1,300 free fonts are also supported for all devices. Any other font you want can be used if you first install it on your device and then type in the font name on Imgflip.
- You can insert popular or custom stickers and other images including scumbag hats, deal-with-it sunglasses, speech bubbles, and more. Opacity and resizing are supported, and you can copy/paste images using CMD/CTRL + C/V for quick creation.
- You can rotate, flip, and crop any templates you upload.
- You can draw, outline, or scribble on your meme using the panel just above the meme preview image.
- You can create "meme chains" of multiple images stacked vertically by adding new images with the "below current image" setting.
- You can remove our subtle imgflip.com watermark (as well as remove ads and supercharge your image creation abilities) using Imgflip Pro or .
Can I use the generator for more than just memes?
Yes! The Meme Generator is a flexible tool for many purposes. By uploading custom images and using all the customizations, you can design many creative works including posters, banners, advertisements, and other custom graphics.
Can I make animated or video memes?
Yes! Animated meme templates will show up when you search in the Meme Generator above (try "party parrot"). If you don't find the meme you want, browse all the GIF Templates or upload and save your own animated template using the GIF Maker.
Do you have a wacky AI that can write memes for me?
Funny you ask. Why yes, we do. Here you go: imgflip.
com/ai-meme (warning, may contain vulgarity)
HOMER BUSH Meme Generator - Piñata Farms
Templates
Lightning Fast, Free, Online Meme Generator and Meme Maker. Use "HOMER BUSH" meme template to make "HOMER BUSH" memes in seconds
Uploaded by chase
"HOMER BUSH" meme
"HOMER BUSH" meme
Homer Simpson Backs Into Bushes is a reaction GIF taken from a scene in the animated comedy series The Simpsons in which the main character, Homer Simpson, steps back into a hedge until he is no longer visible.
Make "HOMER BUSH" memes on Piñata Farms, the lightning fast meme maker and meme generator.
"HOMER BUSH" memes
See AllSimilar to "HOMER BUSH" meme
See All"Interupting Kanye" meme
"Success Kid" meme
"Lame Pun Coon" meme
"Inspirational Quote" meme
How do I use this meme generator?
What is Piñata Farms, the meme creator?
The Piñata Farms meme generator is a fast, easy, free meme maker with thousands of meme templates that you can edit and share.
Like every meme generator, it allows you to customize and remix an existing image or video with text, stickers and other fun features.
There’s thousands of templates on the web but if there’s anything you don’t see, there’s more on the video meme generator app, available on both Apple App Store and Google Play Store
Scan to download on iOS
Scan to download on Android
✨
Try to press these buttons
🤔
Why use Piñata Farms
as your meme editor?
💃
Say what you want to say
Say anything you want with a wide variety of text editing features. Change the font, color, and alignment. Move it easily with just your cursor or your finger
🗿
Customize your meme
There’re tools to add stickers of whatever and whoever you want.
Add face stickers of everyone, from Kim Kardashian to your childhood best friend
📺
Connect with other meme makers
Once you’ve started to make memes, get inspiration and recognition from fellow meme makers while they make and post their own memes
And more you will find in
Ultimate meme maker
Piñata Farms has not only a great generator but a community of fellow meme creators who will help inspire and create. Piñata Farms is changing the way the world makes memes. It’s faster, easier and more creative than all the rest
Scan to download on iOS
Scan to download on Android
Read online The Iliad. Abridged version”, Homer – LitRes
Foreword from the translator
I call the “Iliad” the Bible of Ancient Greece.
This greatest work is rich in founts of wisdom and culture. However, remembering my student years, I understood how difficult it is for students, given the constant lack of time, to overcome this literary block, to touch the great poetry of Homer, to plunge into the delightful heroic world of his poems.
After translating the Iliad into modern Russian, in order to make it easier for students to perceive, I decided to go further. In 2013, I made an abridged translation of the Iliad. It is almost two times smaller than the full translation. This allows students to save a lot of time to get to know Homer. At the same time, all the main events of the poem and its unique character are preserved in the abridged Iliad. This is not a summary of the songs, which I also did, this is a full-fledged translation in a compressed form, without scenes that do not affect the narrative. After reading the abridged Iliad, students with a pure heart can say that they have read the whole poem of Homer, and not a summary of it.
You will get the same reading experience as a full translation, only you will save your time twice.
Also, for convenience, I left the same numbering of verses in the abridged Iliad as in the full translation, this is very convenient for finding the corresponding places.
But before proceeding to the abridged Iliad, I offer readers the article "The peculiarity of the languages of Russian translations of Homer", which briefly describes what tasks the Russian translators of Homer faced and how they performed them. If you are not interested, you can immediately scroll down to the abridged translation of the Iliad. Enjoy reading! 91. Each translation has its own language and character bless you?” Dedicated to Maxim Amelin’s translation of the first song of the Odyssey, the following:
“Let’s imagine ourselves the Athenians of the classical era: the Odyssey is three centuries away from us, many Homeric words continue to be used in colloquial speech, but some expressions reflect Mycenaean or even Indo-European antiquity in the sense that they were not already fully understood by Homer! And how can you translate this into Russian if the gap between “brashna” and “zhrite” is much smaller than the extreme points of Homeric diversity?”
This is how V.
Fayer justifies the use in M. Amelin's translation of both modern words and old Slavic words that have long been out of use. In passing, we note that before Amelin, not only Gnedich did this, but also other translators (some intentionally, and some unwittingly). In general, Homer is difficult to translate otherwise. Here we will focus on one phrase of Fire. He remarks:
"some expressions reflect Mycenaean or even Indo-European antiquity in the sense that they were no longer fully intelligible to Homer!"
This statement is questionable. I'm talking about the last part of it. Despite the fact that the Odyssey and the Iliad are “three centuries away from the classical Greek”, and the events described in the poems are five centuries away from Homer himself, according to Homeric scholars, it is nevertheless unlikely that Homer, when creating his poems could use words and expressions, the meaning of which was “not quite clear” to him. It seems that this is impossible in principle.
Apparently, Fire wanted to say that many words and expressions of "Mycenaean or Indo-European antiquity" were already "not quite clear" to Homer himself in the time of Homer. It `s naturally. Just as we may not understand the meaning of some words used three hundred, and even more so five hundred years ago. But it is unlikely that Homer inserted words and expressions into his poems, the meaning of which he himself did not fully understand. Such an assumption is absurd. He could not create poems by inserting into them (even occasionally) words the meaning of which was not clear to him. It is impossible to use any word correctly at all, including "brashna", if one does not know its meaning. And Gnedich could not use outdated words and expressions, the meaning of which was not clear to him. Therefore, although he used obsolete words for his translation, he fully understood their meaning, and his contemporary readers understood Gnedich. Otherwise, the meaning of the use of these words would be lost.
Why, when translating into modernity, insert words that contemporaries cannot understand? It is unlikely that Gnedich would do so. He, of course, artificially aged his translation, but only to such an extent that allowed his contemporaries to understand the meaning of what was said. Otherwise, it would be a translation only for a narrow circle of historians of linguistics.
Therefore, Homer simply could not use words and expressions for his poems that he himself did not understand. But here another question arises. Question about authorship. After all, if Homer's poems were performed orally for many decades, then it is clear that over time, with a natural change in the language, the Aeds introduced new, more modern words into them. And so from century to century. Further, when the poems were decided to be written down on paper (or parchment), the scribes probably also corrected something, corrected it for their modern language, making, perhaps, quite significant changes. Then, during the next correspondence of the poems, changes in the texts could also occur, intentional or accidental, made by mistake.
As a result, the original text of Homer (if there was one) has undergone a rather strong change. So speaking about the authorship of Homer, we must understand that not everything in his poems belongs to him. Although I, like many others, would like to believe that every word in the poems is written by the hand of the great Homer, well, or by his mind.
As for Homer's translations, no matter how much the gap between the style and meaning of words from different eras, the translator is simply obliged to translate the work into the style of his era, his time, if this translation is not an artificial pastiche. It is with artificial stylization that words from different eras can arise, and even inevitably arise. This is partly what Gnedich did with his translation. It is known that the question of stylization also arose in the study of The Tale of Igor's Campaign. Some researchers believed that the "Word" was just skillfully forged in antiquity. But that would be pure stylization, unlike Gnedich's translation.
Nevertheless, we understand that at the time of Gnedch there was a surge of interest in history as such. Perhaps, against the background of this interest, Gnedich decided to give his translation the character of antiquity.
However, if the work is translated into a language modern to the translator, for example, into the Russian language of the 20th century, then the translation cannot contain words like “brashna”, words that do not occur either in oral speech or in artistic or poetic writing of the 20th century century, not to mention ours, the XXI century. Such words can only be used with deliberate antique stylizations. Therefore, it is not necessary to say that Amelin translated the first song of the Odyssey into modern Russian simply on the grounds that his translation does not correspond to modern Russian. In his translation there is some (partial) stylization of both Gnedich and antique, and there is, as it were, its own “Ameline” language, which makes its translation original, unlike others, but does not make it modern.
But can Homer be translated into a purely modern language? It seems unlikely. Styling is indispensable.
A reader asked me in an e-mail: “Are new translations of Homer needed? Are the translations of Gnedich and Zhukovsky not enough? In my opinion, this question is tantamount to asking: is Homer necessary for Russian culture at all, hasn't he already been enough to read? Such questions are absurd if only because Homer today is not only a full-fledged part of Russian culture, but also its special, as it were, elite part. Homer contains the origins of not only European, but also world culture. After the translations of Gnedich and Zhukovsky, Homer became a certain measure of the height of Russian poetry and culture. Pushkin, Nekrasov, Tolstoy, and many other pillars of Russian literature aspired to reach this height.
Not making new translations of Homer means stopping the understanding of Homer, looking at him only through the eyes of Gnedich and Zhukovsky, through the eyes of past generations, not updating this understanding, not expanding it, not modernizing it.
This is despite the fact that Homer in any historical time is extremely modern, he carries in his poems wisdom, culture, and history. Homer is great both in understanding life, and in understanding interpersonal relationships, and in understanding the relationship between people and gods (which is very important for modern religious Russia), and in understanding insoluble conflicts leading to cruel wars, and in understanding family relationships, and in understanding human fantasies. There is practically no area of human relations that the greatest sage Homer would not reveal to us.
Therefore, each new generation is simply obliged to learn his wisdom, try to understand the great ideas of his poems, master, interpret, apply to their time. And this requires new modern translations of Homer, his new understanding. Homer never gets old. After all, each translation of Homer is always a slightly different view of his poems, each translation has its own character, its own characteristics, each translation complements and expands our understanding of Homer.
And through this we again and again evaluate our own outlook on life, re-evaluate our personal and social values.
2. Gnedich's language
Nikolai Ivanovich Gnedich's translation is grandiose and original in its essence. Volumes of literary studies have been written about its significance and merits, so we will only talk about its originality. What is she in? The fact that Gnedich was able to create his own translation language, which few people pay attention to. But we will talk about this a little lower, and first we will point out what anyone who takes up the translation of Gnedich pays attention to.
It has almost become a tradition, “without infringing on all the merits of translation”, as many authors write (which is impossible in principle), to point out that Gnedich’s translation, even for his contemporaries, was still difficult to read due to the abundance of Old Church Slavonic words that were not used even then, and also because of the failure of the rhythm, and sometimes the size of the verse.
No wonder Pushkin wrote an epigram to his translation, alluding to the "curvature" of the verse:
"Kryv was Gnedich the poet, deceiver of blind Homer,
Side by side with the sample is similar and his translation."
This is despite the fact that Pushkin fully appreciated Gnedich's translation as a whole. Indeed, Gnedich's translation is of great importance for Russian culture, and especially for the culture of literary translation. Why for a culture of translation? Yes, because Gnedich did not translate the Iliad into contemporary Russian, as many believe. He translated Homer into his own language, into the language of Gnedich, which he himself invented for his translation of the Iliad. In the language that neither his contemporaries nor the contemporaries of those Old Slavonic words that he used in his translation spoke. In fact, Gnedich translated the Iliad into an artificial Russian language, into an invented language, into Gnedich's own language.
On the one hand, this played a positive role for the translation, making it simply grandiose, unusual, unique, one of a kind. It is no longer possible to repeat this precisely for the reason that the language is not modern, but artificial. Any such attempt will already be an imitation of Gnedich. M. Amelin tried to do something similar in his translation of the first song of the Odyssey. The language of his translation is also hardly modern. But still, his translation received a worthy assessment in the media, they wrote about him, Homeric scholars argued about him. We can say that for the translation of one song of the Odyssey, Amelin received more than Zhukovsky during his lifetime for the translation of the entire poem. Nevertheless, Gnedich cannot be repeated. And most importantly, you don't need to.
If a translator translates a work for his contemporaries into a modern language, then it would be wrong to use old, no longer used words in the translation. That is my opinion.
Gnedich's translation in this regard is rather an exception to the rules of translation. And, a very fortunate exception. But repeating the translation according to the same rules and in the same style would already be a mistake.
On the other hand, the artificial language of Gnedich's translation also played a negative role for him in that it made it difficult for readers to perceive the text of the poem. This became a "vulnerable point", the Achilles' heel of translation, as well as the frequent failure of rhythm, which is not welcome in Russian poetry (although it is characteristic of Homer's poems). It was these "vulnerabilities" of Gnedich's translation that prompted subsequent translators to take on the Iliad again and again. Let us recall the prefaces to our translations of at least Minsky and Veresaev. Both of them indicated the same reasons that prompted them to undertake the translation.
This is how Minsky spoke of the “rapid deterioration of the Gnedich translation”:
“You can still put up with purely Slavic expressions (like insolent, vvosschat, skimny, skranii, sulica, mesk, molds, prugi), and look at them , as foreign words that need translation.
Gnedich’s language is much more spoiled by half-Slavic words and phrases (hairy Persians; a stench of fat; phalanges fell asleep; promising a hundred sacrifices; magnificent sewing; a fiery tripod; a smart inventor of tricks; sobbing crying; the Trojans screamed terribly from behind), arbitrarily composed neoplasms (idle-wandering dogs; man canine-shaped; meshes are flocking; whole-heartedly instead of with all my soul; intricately sewn belt; impudent; soul-death; beltless warriors; indefatigable sun; brushed aegis), and especially ambiguous turns, now expressing not what the author wanted to say (pompous instead of arrogant; influencing instead pouring in; go out instead of overtaking; the lower belly instead of the lower part of the womb; lofty hill; piercing brass; firmament instead of stronghold; bursting bow; reptile manes; pour the reins over the dust). You come across such expressions like bumps, and when reading Gnedich, you have to make some effort on yourself, overcome constant internal resistance, not look at certain points in order to be able to enjoy that beautiful and sublime that really lies in his translation.
Due to the arbitrariness in the use of words, even the successful and smooth verses of Gnedich cannot sometimes be accepted without amendments.
Gnedich and Veresaev wrote something similar about the translation in the preface to their translation of Homer's Iliad:
“...the translation has a number of shortcomings that make it difficult to accept for the modern reader.
The main drawback is the archaic language of translation. (...)
The translation is oversaturated with Church Slavonic words and expressions, replete with such words as "daughter", "rivers", "broadcast", "zane", "packs", "fat", up to such modern completely incomprehensible to the reader, words like "skimen" (young lion), "sulitsa" (spear), "glezna" (shin), etc.
Gnedich, further, tries to adhere to a high style in his translation. Instead of "horse" he writes "horse", instead of "dog" - "dog", instead of "lips" - "mouth", instead of "forehead" - "brow", etc.
.
and Shuisky, and many other translators, as well as literary scholars. Modern literary scholars do not miss this opportunity either. Here, for example, is what Doctor of Philology Gasan Huseynov says about the translation of Gnedich in his article “Did Homer Exist?”:
“Reading Homer translated by N.I. Gnedich, we understand how much is incomprehensible in this translation. And these were not some Greek words, but Russian words that had fallen into disuse, sometimes only some 20 years ago. Not clear - to whom? Yes, even to a literate person. There are less than 200 years between us and the time of Gnedich. This is a lot. A lot, for example, so that the words that sounded lofty and majestic then, today cause laughter or bewilderment.
Here I repeat again and say that Gnedich's contemporaries, unlike our contemporaries, nevertheless understood all the words of his translation, although many of these words were no longer used. And precisely because the translator used obsolete words, it was impossible even at that time to say that Gnedich translated into contemporary Russian.
He translated into his own, special, artificially created, "aged" Russian language.
Therefore, it is understandable that new translations were needed over time.
3. Zhukovsky's language
Some critics reproach Vasily Andreevich Zhukovsky for not being entirely accurate in relation to the original, for many of the epithets in his translation of the Odyssey were invented by him himself, and not translated from Homer. P. Shuisky sins especially with such reproaches (often unfounded). But there are two important things to keep in mind here. Firstly, Zhukovsky did not translate from the original. He translated from the German interlinear. And what was in this interlinear, God knows. It is possible that Zhukovsky translated from him quite accurately. And secondly, we must take into account that this is an artistic, not a technical translation. And it is necessary to evaluate it, first of all, from the point of view of artistry, and not verbatim. In artistic terms, the translation of Zhukovsky is still in the first place.
Neither Veresaev, nor Shuisky, nor others could even come close in poetry and figurativeness to Zhukovsky's translation. And this despite the fact that Zhukovsky himself modestly admitted:
“My translation is not only free, but self-willed, I left out a lot and added a lot.”
Such recognition is worth a lot. Nevertheless, it must be said that Zhukovsky's translation (although he translated from a German interlinear translation) is no less close to the original than other Russian translations of the Odyssey. In many places, Zhukovsky's translation is even closer in meaning to Homer than the translations of Veresaev and Shuisky.
And although Shuisky's translation is praised by some for allegedly correcting many of Zhukovsky's inaccuracies, Shuisky's translation itself is much inferior to Zhukovsky's translation both in literary and artistic terms. As for the inaccuracies of the translation, Shuisky also has enough of them. If you wish, you can find both incorrectly translated and missing words of the ancient Greek text, and Shuisky inserted his own epithets that are not related to Homer's text.
So mistakes can be found in any translation. But it is necessary to judge a literary translation precisely as a work of art, as a whole, and not by how accurately this or that word is translated in it. These are already technical questions for narrow specialists.
Of course, in many places Zhukovsky uses a rather free translation, and he can be reproached for this. For example, in the 20th song of the Odyssey he writes:
Not afraid of new insults; I will not give the hands of suitors
Will; my house is not a hotel where people feast arbitrarily
Of course, Homer does not say anything about “any bastard” in this passage, Veresaev translates these verses more accurately. But the artistry and expression of Zhukovsky are quite understandable. He creates a more lively and impressive picture, without deviating from the meaning of the story. Although it is possible to reproach him here for the inaccuracy of the translation. However, when you compare the language of Homer with the language of the translations of Zhukovsky or Gnedich, it seems that the ancient Greek text is too dry for the Russian language.
As for the old, obsolete words, Zhukovsky, although much less common than Gnedich, still used obsolete words, the meaning of which many do not understand today. These words themselves require a modern translation. For example, such words as "because" (Odyssey, 18:23) and the like.
However, everything pays off and justifies the incredible power of the poetry of Zhukovsky's translation. In terms of poetry, his translation of the Odyssey still remains unsurpassed in Russian literature, as evidenced by such lines as: “shields with crystal from frost turned thin.” I understand Veresaev, who plucked up courage and literally copied this verse into his translation. It is difficult to resist such temptation. Zhukovsky's translation can rightfully be considered the standard, the pinnacle of Homer's poetic translation into Russian.
4. Minsky's language
Nikolai Maksimovich Minsky's translation of Homer's Iliad stands somewhat apart in literary criticism.
It can be said that, for some strange reason, Minsky's translation was simply unlucky in this regard. His translation is little read, although it is certainly quite worthy of both reading and understanding.
Of course, no modern Russian translation of Homer can be compared either with the translation of Gnedich or with the translation of Zhukovsky, since these translations have long been classics, a pinnacle that no one can shake. There is no need to even talk about it. We are talking here only about the characteristics of various Russian translations of Homer. Moreover, about very superficial characteristics, since volumes can be written about each translation. But we have a different task.
If we compare Minsky's translation with the later translations of Veresaev and Shuisky, then it is not much inferior to them, for example, Veresaev's translation, which even surpasses the original text. And it certainly surpasses Shuisky's translation in many ways. It is even possible that someone would put it in the first place of these three translations, with which I could also agree, but with some reservations.
In my purely personal opinion, he takes an honorable second place after the translation of Veresaev.
Minsky's translation of Homer's Iliad certainly has its own distinctive features both in style and language. It is more concise than Veresaev's translation, and in this way it is to a certain extent similar to the conciseness of the original. Also, Minsky much less often than Veresaev borrows words and lines from previous translators, in particular from Gnedich. In addition, Minsky has a more even verse. The language of his translation is more literary than in Shuisky's translation.
Nevertheless, the language of Minsky's translation as a whole is recognized as somewhat “dry”, it does not feel as much expression as it is present in the translations of Gnedich, Zhukovsky, and later Veresaev.
Taking up the translation with a specific goal, Minsky, although he approached it, did not achieve it. What was the purpose of his translation? He himself speaks of this in the preface to his translation, which we have already partially quoted above:
“The translation of the Iliad, begun by Gnedich in 1809year and completed by him twenty years later, was found by many to be obsolete at its very appearance .
.. look at them as foreign words that need to be translated…”
Above is a more complete quotation, but here it is important for us to understand whether Minsky achieved his goal in his translation? In part, yes, I did. His translation is still more modern. However, Minsky also has words that are no longer used today, for example, such as: “said”, “said”, characteristic of poetic speech of the 19th century, for example, in Pushkin’s poetry, and even then, mainly in “fabulous” poetry . Also, in his translation, there are often words with colloquial endings: “Hidden”, “Give birth”, “Raised”. In addition, the unevenness of the verse ("curvature" in the words of Pushkin) is often present in him.
On the whole, Nikolai Minsky's translation occupies a worthy place among the Russian translations of Homer. It has its own style and recognizable laconic language.
Another advantage of Minsky's translation is that this is the first attempt to fully translate Homer's Iliad into a truly modern literary Russian language, and not into an artificially created language, as Gnedich did.
5. Veresaev's language
The translation language of Vikenty Vikentyevich Veresaev should be discussed separately. Homeric scholars do not really respect his translation because Veresaev allowed himself to borrow many lines from previous translators. Therefore, speaking about the language of its translation, it is necessary to talk not only about the professional, but also about the ethical side of the issue: that is, whether the translator has the right to borrow other people's lines for his translation.
This is how Veresaev justifies this right. In the preface to his translation, he quite honestly admits:
“I base my translation on Gnedich's translation wherever it is successful, wherever it can be preserved. (...) I considered it possible to include in the translation some successful verses and turns of Minsky. And if the quality of the translation improves from borrowing, then everything will be justified.”
How ethical is this? In a strictly professional sense, this, of course, can be considered some compilation, borrowing or even plagiarism by modern standards of intellectual property definition.
For this, Veresaev is disliked by many Homeric translators. And absolutely in vain. After all, the question of ethics does not end there. This issue must be considered not only from one side, but also from the other. Not only from the side of responsibility to my fellow writers and translators, but also from the side of responsibility to readers. Which of them is the most important? Reader or Critic? This becomes clearer when we define whether the writer is working for the critic or the reader. This is where everything falls into place.
I don't like those translators who distort a string just to be different from the translations of previous translators, using the rule: “Let the string be worse, but this is my string, my translation; and let me translate Homer worse than anyone else, but I will remain in history as the translator of Homer, I will join, so to speak, the great one. This is not only stupid, but also unfair to the reader. Such a translator does not think about the reader, and not about the translated work, but only about himself.
Is he ethical? From a professional and legal point of view, where the originality of the text is more important, perhaps ethical. But from the point of view of the reader and literature - no. The reader is primarily interested in the quality of the text, readability, and not its originality.
Of course, copyright, especially in our time, is a certain obstacle. Not every translator can overcome the fear of being accused of borrowing. But for the work itself, and for the reader, sometimes it is better that there is no copyright at all. Of course, this does not apply to all cases, I would even say that this applies only to rare special cases. It also concerns repeated literary translations. Why? Yes, because it is impossible to translate the same line endlessly “in a new way”, each time with the original text, and even so that it gets better every time. No, it will either be repeated in many words, or distorted, worsening. Therefore, “borrowing” in repeated translations is sometimes simply unavoidable.
The translated work is difficult because the original string already exists. It cannot be translated with any other meaning. And for the expression of a certain meaning in the language there are certain words. You can not translate the word "dig" as "fly". Therefore, each subsequent translator will increasingly repeat the previous ones. And this contributes to the fact that it can be accused of compiling. I write about this problem in more detail in the article “On the compilability of repeated translations”.
However, one must know the measure in everything. There are "typical" lines where the word "dig" cannot be translated as "fly". And there are very authorial, very original lines where borrowing turns into plagiarism, although this is not important for the reader. So, for example, Veresaev left unchanged some of the beautiful lines of Gnedich, and then Zhukovsky. For example, that line of Zhukovsky, which we already talked about above:
"shields with crystal from the frost turned thin.
"
It does not quite correspond to the Homeric original, but it is certainly poetic and beautiful. Only Zhukovsky could say so. However, Veresaev also signed under it, appropriating it for himself. He acted in a similar way with the translation of Gnedich, and with the translation of Minsky. Therefore, here we can talk about legal ethics, or we can talk about reader ethics, because the general reader is more interested in the readability of the text, its lightness, and not its authorship.
We love The Tale of Igor's Campaign not for its authorship (we don't even know the author), but for its poetry and originality. Well, how can an author be found, and it turns out that he largely copied the “Word” from an older author? What then? Never mind. The "Word" will not lose its value for us, but will acquire an even greater halo of mystery.
Or, for example, let us recall that even Shakespeare was engaged in literary compilation. He altered already existing plays by other authors, borrowing from them not only the plots, but also the text, bringing it to perfection.
So now? And Shakespeare will be accused of compilation and plagiarism?
Of course, having overcome the professional and ethical obstacle, although Veresaev became in fact not an author, but a co-author of his translations, he was able to create the most easily read translations of Homer, caring more about the reader, and not about himself and his own reputation among Homeric scholars and translators . Therefore, his translations of Homer, especially the Iliad, became the most beloved among ordinary readers in the 20th century, and most students studying Homer still prefer Veresaev's translations to this day.
But let's leave the ethical side and move on to the professional. Having set himself the goal of making a more modern translation of Homer, Veresaev largely achieved this goal. In any case, as already mentioned, his translation is easier to read than, for example, Gnedich's translation.
However, his goal was not fully achieved. Veresaev, like Minsky, could not overcome all the problems of equalizing the rhythm and meter of the verse, that is, the “curvature” of the verse is also visible in some places.
However, Homer also has it. Also, Veresaev did not completely solve the problems of “modernizing” the language. Of course, here again one can recall the Homeric scholar V. Fayer, whom I respect, who pointed out that Homer also used words from different eras. However, here it is necessary to decide whether the author translates Homer into a modern language, or into an artificial language of different eras, as Gnedich did. After all, the bottom line is that Homer, although he used the words of different eras, but all these words were still in use in his time, during the creation of poems. Just as in our time, for example, the words “cart”, “tarantass” are used, although there are no tarantasses for a long time, and the carts remained only in the outback. Gnedich used words that were not used in his time. And this is the big difference in the approach to translation. Using words from different eras that are in use in modern language is one thing. But using words that do not have circulation in the modern language is another thing; in this case, the translation can be called modern only from the point of view of its appearance, and not its language.
The language of such a translation is not modern, but artificial.
Edgar L. Doctorow "Homer and Langley"
Human life is full of paradoxes. He wants to be independent of society; he wants to be favorably received by society. He wants not to be indebted to anyone; he wants help from others. He wants the officials to leave him behind; he wants the officials to do everything for him. And so on and so forth. Eternal two sides of the same coin.
Two brothers, Homer and Langley, were born into a wealthy family. In this they were lucky. But Homer was blind, Langley was poisoned during a gas attack, so it’s impossible to say that they were completely lucky. However, with money and servants, they could do a pretty good job of surviving in this difficult world. If you wanted to. The annotation to the book is written so cunningly that you expect something rebellious, ideological, consistent from the work. Two brothers against the system. But in reality, everything is much more prosaic.
When a person has money and no obligations, he can do what he wants. There is even a theory that if a person is provided with basic needs and partially freed from work, then he will begin to spend this free time on creativity. And the example of the brothers from this book seems to even confirm this. But who benefited from their creation? And was it a creation? If everyone starts painting pictures and composing music, will there be enough people who want to listen to it? Who will inspire you to continue? And will this music be of such a level that it is worth continuing to compose it? You can do something all your life, but never really do anything for humanity, even for a tiny part of it.
However, all this is not so important, since only Langley had a long-term hobby. He is a true collector. Collectors are often called this word, but no, they are not the same thing. The collector not only collects something, he studies it, catalogs it, searches for common things, highlights the main thing, finds patterns.
Langley's dream, for which he is starting all this, seems to me, like his brother Homer, unrealizable because of the infinity of the task and because of the meaninglessness of the very essence of the material. He wants to create the perfect newspaper that will always have up-to-date content, since nothing is really new under the sun. Real newspapers do not appeal to reason, but to feelings, to emotions, to the bestial part of a person. Logic is not needed there, irritability is more important there. The more powerful the stimulus, the more shocked the person. The sooner he will run to discuss this event with someone. The more newspaper circulation. Therefore, the very idea of Langley to create a newspaper for all time is not tenable. The fact is that a person gets used to everything, even deafening news. If earlier he was shocked by the wound of the old woman in the bakery, now give the torn corpses of girls. He won’t even lead an ear to an old woman. The callousness of the reader? No, it's the protection of the body.
Those same "wolves, wolves" begin to play their role. Gradually, people realize that apart from loud headlines for old ladies in bakeries, nothing is done by screamers. They just need to sell hot news. And the reader himself is not able to help every old woman. As a result, ignoring is the only way to keep our minds in the frenzy of the world that propagandists representing the interests of various groups and journalists who earn money in the information field create in our minds. A normal person cannot publicly shout that he is fighting with someone for life and death, but in a private conversation hug and shake hands. A normal person cannot even imagine that someone else would do this. Therefore, when he learns such things about politicians, bosses, movie stars and other people who like to teach him how to live, he tries to distance himself from them, as from lepers. That is why Langley wanted to create a newspaper for all time and end this endlessly recurring informational nightmare.
I understand him perfectly. Recently, while re-reading Galina Shcherbakova’s You Never Dreamed, I came across the following paragraph: “The novel returned at the wrong time that day. He sneezed at the first lesson, and he was sent home, because there was an epidemic of the latest and most fashionable flu in Leningrad. And in the central grocery store they were already selling in bandages. and thought that there was really nothing new going on in the world. Those who are behind any information hype take advantage of our ignorance of the past. Every person, especially when he is young, thinks that it is his generation, it is he who discovers the world anew and does something new, original. And in fact, everything is repeated. Bring up old cartoons that are 50 years old, 100 years old, they are still relevant today. A little more fashionable to draw, a little update and you can print. Langley understands this, and Homer seems to understand it too. And they hide from it. Therefore, there is no talk of any real struggle with the system.
The brothers gradually go into the shell, retreating deeper in an effort to maintain peace, to preserve the opportunity to do what they want. They seem to be stuck in childhood. They sincerely expect that others will forgive them any pranks. But the surrounding adults do not appreciate pranks, they value money. However, in this part, the brothers do not lag behind them. The only thing they are ready to seriously face the system for is to try to save their capital. The rest is of little concern to them. There is no ideology in the brothers' self-isolation, in their breaking all threads from civilization. They don't want any fight, they just don't want to accept the rules of life in society. But they don't want to change either. They have no idea that if they do not pay for water, gas, electricity, a house, then someone may not be paid a salary. This someone is working to have it all with the brethren. They childishly expect that they owe everything simply because they want it. This is not rebellion, this is irresponsibility.
