Slog - Comments on The Good One

Comment by Mr. Poe

Mr. Poe — Wed, 23 May 2007 13:55:49 -0800

Since I can never seem to relate to anything you have to say, I'll reply with something completely random (but not, since the word Zoo is involved!).

What the fuck is it with Berlin and baby Zoo animals? Why is this news? Why do I keep seeing reports on baby Polar Bears and Elephants? Who the fuck cares?

Comment by Fnarf

Fnarf — Wed, 23 May 2007 14:03:46 -0800

What is translation? On a platter
A poet's pale and glaring head
A parrot's screetch
A monkey's chatter
And profanation of the dead.

C'mon, Charles, I thought you were a Nabokov fan. If the translator's job is to write a new passage, write a new passage, and make it as pretty as you want to. If your job is to convey the exact meaning of the original, you're probably screwed, but the best you can do cannot be judged by how lovely it is or isn't in the new language.

"God is" and "By cosmic rule" do NOT mean anything like the same thing. Which did Heraclitus mean?

Comment by indeed

indeed — Wed, 23 May 2007 14:28:58 -0800

Thank you, Fnarf. I was hoping someone would point that out. Bonus points for digging up (or reciting from memory?) the Nabokov verse. Like much of his stuff, it's a doozy.

Comment by ap

ap — Wed, 23 May 2007 14:32:50 -0800

I don't have it handy -- what's the Greek?

Comment by Fnarf

Fnarf — Wed, 23 May 2007 14:43:09 -0800

Not from memory. Nothing's from memory. I have to write down my home address these days. I even remembered this backwards, "a poet's pale head upon a platter". But google can find lots of things even when you've muddled them up.

Comment by elswinger

elswinger — Wed, 23 May 2007 14:51:24 -0800

I like cosmic rule. Since it is pre-Socratic, "God" hadn't been born yet.

At least now I know what myrrh is.

Comment by Indeed Moreover

Indeed Moreover — Wed, 23 May 2007 15:21:56 -0800

"one suspects that literary change might be an illusion."

All your theory courses and readings, as incense, up in smoke.

Comment by ehd

ehd — Wed, 23 May 2007 15:37:44 -0800

anyone know which fragment that is?

Comment by charles

charles — Wed, 23 May 2007 15:47:18 -0800

fnarf, i agree with you and God, Nabokov. my issue here, however, is not the translation but simply style. one is better than the other. i really don't care about the original.

as for ehd, in the freeman book the fragment is 67.

Comment by J. Lasser

J. Lasser — Wed, 23 May 2007 15:58:02 -0800

Perhaps, in the second translation, 'chances' should be 'changes.' Then we have a good description of "God" (or the cosmic rule, if you prefer the first quote for that):

But he changes like (fire), which (when it mingles with the smoke of incense) is named according to each man�s pleasure.

I've changed the punctuation there in order to make clear how I read it.

I particularly like (fire) in parenthesis, for reasons having to do with a peculiar theory of mine -- Prometheus didn't give man fire, he gave man "divine fire," the spark of life, which I'm told is a different word in ancient Greek.

I've always thought that Heraclitus was saying that the entire world is alive, not that it's being burned alive. (Not reading Greek, modern or ancient, I admit that my judgement is completely uninformed...)

Comment by ehd

ehd — Wed, 23 May 2007 15:59:13 -0800

well, the original definitely says "god is." if the translator and the reader intend to communicate and receive what it is that heraclitus thought when he wrote it down, freeman's translation is not better. on the other hand, in its own right, it is. but what is its "own right"?

Comment by ehd

ehd — Wed, 23 May 2007 16:48:23 -0800

i beg your pardon. please substitute "davenport" for "freeman".

Comment by Mokawi

Mokawi — Wed, 23 May 2007 19:42:10 -0800

Ok... here the greek (from here):

ὁ θεὸς ἡμέρη εὐφρόνη, χειμὼν θέρος, πόλεμος εἰρήνη, κόρος λιμός (τἀναντία ἅπαντα· οὗτος ὁ νοῦς), ἀλλοιοῦται δὲ ὅκωσπερ (πῦρ), ὁπόταν συμμιγῇ θυώμασιν ὀνομάζεται καθ΄ ἡδονὴν ἑκάστου.

So the greek litterally is "God is ..." and then the pairs of opposites. Moreover, the allegory following this sentence doesn't have much to do with Davenport's translation.
However, I disagree with translating "καθ΄ ἡδονὴν ἑκάστου" as "according to each man�s pleasure" as well. This, in my opinion, is more exact:

but he takes (ἀλλοιοῦται) various shapes, just as (ὅκωσπερ) fire (πῦρ), when (ὁπόταν) it is mingled (συμμιγῇ) with different incenses (θυώμασιν), is named (ὀνομάζεται) according (καθ΄) to the savour (ἡδονὴν) of each (ἑκάστου).

Meaning that each incense give fire its perfume.

Honestly, I don't know what it is that Davenport tries to translate, but apparently he hasn't read the fragment in question.
As for making sense of God, I guess you'd have to read Heraclitus's work to get it right. Otherwise there are millions of ways to understand it. Instinctively, I'd say he's fire (cf. frag. 65) and the principle of change.

Comment by dirge

dirge — Wed, 23 May 2007 20:28:30 -0800

It's hard to believe that a philosopher from a polytheistic society would use the phrase "god is", let alone "God is". It begs the question "Which god?"
Is it possible that the "God" meaning came about at some point between Heraclitus and Constantinople?