hide Sorting

You can sort these results in two ways:

By entity (current method)
Chronological order for dates, alphabetical order for places and people.
By position
As the entities appear in the document.

You are currently sorting in ascending order. Sort in descending order.

hide Most Frequent Entities

The entities that appear most frequently in this document are shown below.

Entity Max. Freq Min. Freq
R. W. Emerson 80 0 Browse Search
J. W. Goethe 46 0 Browse Search
Alfred Tennyson 44 0 Browse Search
J. R. Lowell 42 0 Browse Search
H. W. Longfellow 42 0 Browse Search
W. D. Howells 40 0 Browse Search
Matthew Arnold 38 0 Browse Search
Americans 38 0 Browse Search
Chapmanizes Homer 30 0 Browse Search
Europe 28 0 Browse Search
View all entities in this document...

Browsing named entities in a specific section of Thomas Wentworth Higginson, The new world and the new book. Search the whole document.

Found 72 total hits in 31 results.

1 2 3 4
Charles T. Brooks (search for this): chapter 18
dealing with the oft-translated First Part that the higher poetic qualities come in; and in this Taylor has been easily surpassed, I should say, by the late Charles T. Brooks. And while Brooks, it is true, stopped short of the longer and more laborious Second Part, yet he made up for that by his remarkable series of versions of Brooks, it is true, stopped short of the longer and more laborious Second Part, yet he made up for that by his remarkable series of versions of the yet more difficult work of Jean Paul Richter. These he handled, especially the Hesperus and Titan, with a felicity and success unequalled among Richter's translators; and it is an illustration of the ignorance in England of the successes achieved by Americans in this direction, that Mr. Brooks's works of this series are thereMr. Brooks's works of this series are there so little recognized. Another remarkable American translator from the German is Charles G. Leland, whose version of Heine's Reisebilder under the name of Pictures of Travel is so extraordinarily graphic and at the same time so literal that it ought of itself to achieve a permanent fame for the author of Hans Breitmann.
W. C. Bryant (search for this): chapter 18
lating; the longer a man works, the more precise he becomes. The second of Mr. Boyesen's great American translators is Bryant; and here I should utterly dissent from him. The best introduction to Homer in English is Matthew Arnold's Essay on Transrevents many persons from really mastering it; but I do not see how any one, after reading it, can look through a page of Bryant's version without a sense of its utter tameness and its want of almost all the qualities defined by Arnold as essential tglimpse of a landscape scene by a flash of lightning. What came before and immediately after we cannot discern. But in Bryant's translation there is substituted for the flash of lightning the very mildest moonlight; and there seems no particular rng in the tone or flavor of his narrative, why the whole series of events should not have taken place on Staten Island. Mr. Bryant undoubtedly had, in his youth, something of Longfellow's gift for translation; his early Spanish ballads had in them mu
Chapman (search for this): chapter 18
tic translation can be good and literal at the same time, is refuted by the very existence of Longfellow, whose instinct for the transference of his author's language seemed like a sixth sense or a special gift for that one purpose. Placing side by side his German ballads and their originals, one neither detects anything of Longfellow put in nor anything of Uhland or Heine left out. The more powerful and commanding class of translators insert themselves into the work of their authors; thus Chapman so Chapmanizes Homer that in the long run his version fails to give pleasure; and Fiztgerald has whole lines in his Agamemnon which are not in Aeschylus and are almost indistinguishable in flavor from his Omar Khayyam. Even Mrs. Austin, in that exquisite version quoted by Longfellow in his Hyperion, beginning Many a year is in its grave, has infused into it a tinge of dreamy sentiment slightly beyond that conveyed by Uhland in the original. It is perhaps more beautiful, as it stand
J. W. Goethe (search for this): chapter 18
XVII American translators the English-speaking race has a strong instinct for translation, extending through both its branches. Miss Mitford says of one of her heroes in a country town, He translated Horace, as all gentlemen do; and Mrs. Austin speaks of Goethe's Faust as that untranslatable poem which every Englishman translates. Americans are not behind their British cousins in these labors; and Professor Boyesen —who, as a Norseman by birth and an American by adoption, is free of all languages—has written an agreeable paper in Book News 1 August, 1888. on the general subject of translations. In this he says that America has produced three of the greatest translators of modern times; a statement which every patriotic American would perhaps indorse, were he himself only allowed to make the selection. To two out of three of Mr. Boyesen's favorites I should certainly take decided objection; and, curiously enough, should nominate as substitutes two other translators of the
Heinrich Heine (search for this): chapter 18
the transference of his author's language seemed like a sixth sense or a special gift for that one purpose. Placing side by side his German ballads and their originals, one neither detects anything of Longfellow put in nor anything of Uhland or Heine left out. The more powerful and commanding class of translators insert themselves into the work of their authors; thus Chapman so Chapmanizes Homer that in the long run his version fails to give pleasure; and Fiztgerald has whole lines in his Ags translators; and it is an illustration of the ignorance in England of the successes achieved by Americans in this direction, that Mr. Brooks's works of this series are there so little recognized. Another remarkable American translator from the German is Charles G. Leland, whose version of Heine's Reisebilder under the name of Pictures of Travel is so extraordinarily graphic and at the same time so literal that it ought of itself to achieve a permanent fame for the author of Hans Breitmann.
Hesperus (search for this): chapter 18
etres, taxes severely the ingenuity and adroitness of any workman, yet it is in dealing with the oft-translated First Part that the higher poetic qualities come in; and in this Taylor has been easily surpassed, I should say, by the late Charles T. Brooks. And while Brooks, it is true, stopped short of the longer and more laborious Second Part, yet he made up for that by his remarkable series of versions of the yet more difficult work of Jean Paul Richter. These he handled, especially the Hesperus and Titan, with a felicity and success unequalled among Richter's translators; and it is an illustration of the ignorance in England of the successes achieved by Americans in this direction, that Mr. Brooks's works of this series are there so little recognized. Another remarkable American translator from the German is Charles G. Leland, whose version of Heine's Reisebilder under the name of Pictures of Travel is so extraordinarily graphic and at the same time so literal that it ought of it
Chapmanizes Homer (search for this): chapter 18
rt themselves into the work of their authors; thus Chapman so Chapmanizes Homer that in the long run his version fails to give pleasure; andnd here I should utterly dissent from him. The best introduction to Homer in English is Matthew Arnold's Essay on Translating Homer; or ratheHomer; or rather it would be, but for its needless and diffuse length, which prevents many persons from really mastering it; but I do not see how any one, a want of almost all the qualities defined by Arnold as essential to Homer. Mr. Lawton has finely said, at the beginning of his admirable papnd while they are grave and dignified, as his critic says, they are Homer with the fire of Homer—or, in other words, with Homer himself—left Homer himself—left out. But the real translator of the Father of Poetry is, in my judgment, one whom Mr. Boyesen does not name, and perhaps does not yet know, snearest approach that can be had in English to the actual rhythm of Homer. Professor Palmer will now have to solve the further and more diff<
Omar Khayyam (search for this): chapter 18
hat one purpose. Placing side by side his German ballads and their originals, one neither detects anything of Longfellow put in nor anything of Uhland or Heine left out. The more powerful and commanding class of translators insert themselves into the work of their authors; thus Chapman so Chapmanizes Homer that in the long run his version fails to give pleasure; and Fiztgerald has whole lines in his Agamemnon which are not in Aeschylus and are almost indistinguishable in flavor from his Omar Khayyam. Even Mrs. Austin, in that exquisite version quoted by Longfellow in his Hyperion, beginning Many a year is in its grave, has infused into it a tinge of dreamy sentiment slightly beyond that conveyed by Uhland in the original. It is perhaps more beautiful, as it stands, than any of Longfellow's ballad-versions; but it is less perfect as a rendering. It is possible that Longfellow's own method swerved a little, in his later years, toward over-literalness. There are many who prefe
Andrew Lang (search for this): chapter 18
s, the nearest approach that can be had in English to the actual rhythm of Homer. Professor Palmer will now have to solve the further and more difficult problem, whether the stronger and richer measure of the Iliad can be dealt with in the same way. But the work already done is one of the monumental works of American scholarship; and although it stands to the eye as a prose version, and might at first be hastily classed with a translation so incomparably inferior to it as that of Butcher and Lang, yet it is really as literal as that, while achieving at least half the interval, whatever that may be, which separates prose from poetry. Mr. Boyesen's third great American translator is Bayard Taylor. Here again he seems to me to concede too much to labor and not enough to genius. As a tour de force, Taylor's great work is doubtless monumental, and an honor to American scholarship. I remember with what regret I noticed that there was no copy of it, ten years ago, in the collection of
W. C. Lawton (search for this): chapter 18
erican translators is Bryant; and here I should utterly dissent from him. The best introduction to Homer in English is Matthew Arnold's Essay on Translating Homer; or rather it would be, but for its needless and diffuse length, which prevents many persons from really mastering it; but I do not see how any one, after reading it, can look through a page of Bryant's version without a sense of its utter tameness and its want of almost all the qualities defined by Arnold as essential to Homer. Mr. Lawton has finely said, at the beginning of his admirable papers on Aeschylus in the Atlantic Monthly August, 1888. that the Homeric poems offer us, as it were, a glimpse of a landscape scene by a flash of lightning. What came before and immediately after we cannot discern. But in Bryant's translation there is substituted for the flash of lightning the very mildest moonlight; and there seems no particular reason, from anything in the tone or flavor of his narrative, why the whole series of
1 2 3 4