Scan barcode
Reviews
The Life of Alexander the Great by Arthur Hugh Clough, John Dryden, Victor Davis Hanson, Plutarch
snowblu3's review against another edition
4.0
Had to read for GoT history class. Good stories. Entertaining. Hard to read though. I would pay someone good money to translate this into modern English! Lots of "wont" and "fain" and just...ugh.
reaganwaggoner's review against another edition
3.0
It’s a classic, so it probably deserves more than three stars for preserving so much history, but three stars it it.
The translation is a bit confusing to me, but granted it’s been hundreds of years.
Alexander is confusing - he believed Greeks were superior, of course, and of his own status as the descendant of a god. Yet he was often plotted against for being too favorable toward the barbarians
His expansion baffles me... how could you ever love conquest enough to kill so many in the process?
The mass wedding is interesting, as well as the polygamy, religion, and strange deaths.
His father died suspiciously, as did he. I feel there is a lot we do not know. Regardless, his simultaneous cruelty and peace-extending behavior toward the Persians is fascinating.
The translation is a bit confusing to me, but granted it’s been hundreds of years.
Alexander is confusing - he believed Greeks were superior, of course, and of his own status as the descendant of a god. Yet he was often plotted against for being too favorable toward the barbarians
His expansion baffles me... how could you ever love conquest enough to kill so many in the process?
The mass wedding is interesting, as well as the polygamy, religion, and strange deaths.
His father died suspiciously, as did he. I feel there is a lot we do not know. Regardless, his simultaneous cruelty and peace-extending behavior toward the Persians is fascinating.
xiaozhansbooty's review against another edition
I didn't read this exact translation but close enough.
spacestationtrustfund's review against another edition
3.0
This review is of the translation by John Dryden.
Dryden's translation is a classic, of course, despite being from the 17th century (1683). I have great respect for him as a translator, since his translations of classic works from Latin or Ancient Greek were responsible for making these texts more accessible to the less-educated populace who hadn't learned Latin or Ancient Greek. Of course his translation style is not without its faults; translation as a distinct field was relatively new,* so scholars like Dryden were playing by ear, much in the same way early ancient historians had few or no precedent from which to extrapolate—and instead were wont to interpolate. (Dryden's Wikipedia page actually has an excellent breakdown of some of the more obvious stylistic decisions in his type of translation, as well as specific examples.)
Dryden's belief was that Latin was a more concise language than English,** and therefore could not be duly represented by a comparable number or arrangement of words in translation. The "way to please the best Judges," according to him, was "not to Translate a Poet literally; and [Vergil] least of any other." The example given is from the Aeneid, L.II. 789–795:
//
*Translation—or, more commonly, interpretation—had been happening since the dawn of language, but the growing acceptance of translation as a respected field as practice, as opposed to either learning other languages in order to read different cultures' works or reading exclusively that which had been written in one's own native language, was still nascent and, despite his many (and notable) flaws, Dryden's translations of Homer, Vergil, etc., made accessible these classic texts to a broader audience, i.e., not exclusively the wealthy and educated.
**I do so wonder what he thought of Cicero.
[Olympias] often wrote to [Alexander] [...], and he never communicated her letters to anybody, unless it were one which he opened when Hephæstion was by, whom he permitted, as his custom was, to read it along with him; but then as soon as he had done, he took off his ring, and set the seal upon Hephæstion’s lips.[dissolves into a puddle]
Dryden's translation is a classic, of course, despite being from the 17th century (1683). I have great respect for him as a translator, since his translations of classic works from Latin or Ancient Greek were responsible for making these texts more accessible to the less-educated populace who hadn't learned Latin or Ancient Greek. Of course his translation style is not without its faults; translation as a distinct field was relatively new,* so scholars like Dryden were playing by ear, much in the same way early ancient historians had few or no precedent from which to extrapolate—and instead were wont to interpolate. (Dryden's Wikipedia page actually has an excellent breakdown of some of the more obvious stylistic decisions in his type of translation, as well as specific examples.)
Dryden's belief was that Latin was a more concise language than English,** and therefore could not be duly represented by a comparable number or arrangement of words in translation. The "way to please the best Judges," according to him, was "not to Translate a Poet literally; and [Vergil] least of any other." The example given is from the Aeneid, L.II. 789–795:
iamque vale et nati serva communis amorem.As opposed to Dryden's translation:
haec ubi dicta dedit, lacrimantem et multa volentem
dicere deseruit, tenuisque recessit in auras.
ter conatus ibi collo dare bracchia circum;
ter frustra comprensa manus effugit imago,
par levibus ventis volucrique simillima somno.
sic demum socios consumpta nocte reviso
I trust our common issue to your care.Obviously this is a looser, more poetic translation, not a literal one. Two examples are the phrase "haec ubi dicta dedit" (when she gave these words), which Dryden (reasonably) renders as "she said," and "ter conatus ibi collo dare bracchia circum; / ter frustra comprensa manus effugit imago" (thrice trying to give [his] arms around [her] neck; / thrice the image grasped in vain fled [his] hands), which Dryden modifies in order to fit his chosen metre and rhyme:
She said, and gliding pass'd unseen in air.
I strove to speak: but horror tied my tongue;
And thrice about her neck my arms I flung,
And, thrice deceiv'd, on vain embraces hung.
Light as an empty dream at break of day,
Or as a blast of wind, she rush'd away.
Thus having pass'd the night in fruitless pain,
I to my longing friends return again.
And thrice about her neck my arms I flung,The meaning is more or less the same, relying more on authorial intent rather than actual verbiage. In his preface to Sylvae, an anthology of translations, Dryden wrote that "what was beautiful in the Greek or Latin, would not appear so shining in the English," a statement with which I agree. A modern translator, operating with the aid of modern technological advances and further understanding of language and its abilities, would certainly be held to a different standard, but Dryden, in my opinion, did the best he could.
And, thrice deceiv'd, on vain embraces hung.
//
*Translation—or, more commonly, interpretation—had been happening since the dawn of language, but the growing acceptance of translation as a respected field as practice, as opposed to either learning other languages in order to read different cultures' works or reading exclusively that which had been written in one's own native language, was still nascent and, despite his many (and notable) flaws, Dryden's translations of Homer, Vergil, etc., made accessible these classic texts to a broader audience, i.e., not exclusively the wealthy and educated.
**I do so wonder what he thought of Cicero.
bhansy's review against another edition
3.0
Great primary (?) source, just found it boring and not interesting at all, sorry Alex.
shannasbooksnhooks's review against another edition
5.0
It was a quick read, and I enjoyed it. I'm probably going to give it a reread to give it a better review since I read it for school this time around.