I really do think that this dwelling on the details is the only way to do full justice to Poul Anderson's texts. The History of Technic Civilization exists on at least two levels. An sf fan might read some of its installments quickly, not in their proper order, enjoy the action-adventure fiction, then move on to something else, probably missing or soon forgetting all the ingenious background details. Every planetary environment has been imaginatively built from its molecules upwards. The more it is studied, the more can be found in it.
The Lancaster sf seller, Pete Pinto, once described Anderson as "the most under-rated serious sf writer." This is tragically true. Anderson's fiction combines bright surface with deep substance. How many see the surface but do not discern the substance? - a word that has been over-used on this blog, but I try to convey the substance by quoting and summarizing complicated plots and background information.
Meanwhile, in our pensioners' Latin class, we are reading about Boudica, St Paul at Ephesus and Orpheus: Tacitus, the Vulgate and Virgil. All worthwhile and all relevant to Anderson.
11 comments:
Hi, Paul!
Hmmmm, how was the Vulgate Bible connected to, or relevant to Poul Anderson? We both know he was a serious reader of the Bible, but the version he seems to have most often used was the Anglican Authorized Version.
Sean
Sean,
OK, the Vulgate as such isn't. I just meant the Bible, I suppose.
Paul.
Hi, Paul!
Wait! I think Poul Anderson might have some connection to the Vulgate after all. I have a vague recollection of the Vulgate Bible being quoted in THE KING OF YS. If true, that makes sense because the Vulgate would be the standard Latin text used in the Latin speaking parts of the Roman Empire.
Sean
Sean,
The Vulgate was completed in 405. Does that date fit with YS? I would be interested if you could find the reference in YS.
Paul.
Hi, Paul!
I think the Vulgate can fit in with the timeline of THE KING OF YS. That story begins around 382 and ends in 407. Moreover, given the slowness caused by the need to copy and edit everything by hand, I think parts of the Vulgate were already circulating long before that translation was completely finished.
I THINK the possible Vulgate quotations are to be found in the last two volumes of THE KING OF YS: DAHUT, and THE DOG AND THE WOLF. I'll see if I can find them.
Sean
Thanks.
Hi, Paul!
I've gone thru the notes of my SFBC hard back edition of THE KING OF YS in search of the possible quotation from the Vulgate Bible. And checked out some of the Scriptures cited. Alas, they were not in Latin! I have to assume the Andersons used an English translation. Pity, I would have liked to have seen the Vulgate quoted in THE KING OF YS.
Sean
Sean,
I didn't think that YS contained any Biblical passages in Latin. But is there such a thing as a translation into English from the Vulgate? Or might the Andersons have translated from it?
Paul.
Hi, Paul!
Yes, till about 1944, the official text for Catholic translations of the Bible into English was the Latin Vulgate. And the Douai-Reims-Challoner version was the version used by English speaking Catholics till the 1960's. And I have a copy of the 1941 Confraternity version of the NT translated from the Vulgate which I like to read.
Hmmm, interesting, I don't know if the Andersons ever used the Douai-Reims or Confraternity versions. I'll have to check the Scripture texts they quoted to see if they match with either of them.
I don't know if the Andersons knew Latin well enough to translate from it. I could ask Greg Bear, their son in law.
Sean
Sean,
Please do!
I think some people think that the OT was translated from Hebrew into Greek, from Greek into Latin, from Latin into Shakespearean, from Shakespearean into modern, getting distorted at every stage whereas, of course, any modern translation is directly from the most authoritative texts of OT Hebrew and NT Greek.
But, I gather from what you say, that there was one English translation taken from the Latin, not from the original.
Paul.
Hi, Paul!
For the most part, St. Jerome, the translato/editor of the Vulgate, translated the OT directly from Hebrew; and the NT from the Greek. Which means the Douai-Reims Bible (the editors of which also consulted the relevant or available Greek texts) was at only one remove from the original languages. In fact, I've read that the Douai-Reims-Challoner was in some ways more accurate than the Anglican Authorized Version. And based on better manuscripts than the ones King James translators had.
Yes, the preference today is to translate directly from the original Hebrew/Greek mss. Altho my view is that the language and style of many modern translations is rather poor or flat compared to the more dignified styles of older versions.
And I will ask Greg Bear about his parents in law knowledge of Latin when I have more time!
Sean
Post a Comment