Poetry: comparing translated versions

[Eric]

This issue has not been visited for a while. But it is still very relevant. My question still stands: can you successfully discuss two translations of a work without reference to what is written in the original. This affects prose as well as poetry. But it especially important when you have rhyme and rhythm issues which occur chiefly in poetry.

[Hamlet]

This issue has not been visited for a while. But it is still very relevant. My question still stands: can you successfully discuss two translations of a work without reference to what is written in the original. This affects prose as well as poetry. But it especially important when you have rhyme and rhythm issues which occur chiefly in poetry.

No.

This is why the ideal is to read a number of translations, knowing, that the translator will have to adopt a course which loses something.

Example, LOEB classical library, I often read criticisms of the LOEB which say such things as 'not the best text, get yourself a ----- by, it's better...

This reaction often pops up on Amazon, the trouble is that LOEB go for an accurate rendering, and lose, I understand, some of the poetic effects, the tone, etc.

The trouble is that occasionally some of these reviewers claim to be fluent in Ancient Greek, so what is happening there, are they stating a preference, or is it just getting one up on the translator, I'm cynical, I think it's probably the latter.

If I had the time and resources, and decided to read let's say, THE ILIAD, I may begin with Chapman's famous, racy, Elizabethan Homer, and then move on to two or three other translations, I'd probably accept that translator's use each others work, and look for solutions of prior problems, or gaps, so that they can offer an improvement, or different take, but 'better' must be largely subjective. As you move forward in time, a matrix of translations forms, the choice is surely a strength, not something to snub.

[Eric]

I must say, Hamlet, by the time you've gone through the rigmarole of reading the Iliad in umpteen translations, you could have learnt enough Greek to be able to appreciate some of the original text, as long as you have a parallel English translation or two next to it for comparison.

For poetry, having the original for the sounds and rhythms, plus an English translation next to it to make sure you get all the meaning, is a good way of proceeding. This means that your knowledge of the source language (or original language) need not be perfect, but you know enough to appreciate some aspects of the text.

So I greatly appreciate, for instance, the Penguin anthologies of French poetry, as my reading knowledge French is by no means perfect, but I have a pretty good idea of the pronunciation, and know a lot of the vocabulary, so I can read the original and look down at the (usually prose) translation so that I can get all the words and expressions I don't actually know.

However, I cannot do that for Ancient Greek, as I never learnt any at school. I am at times tempted to go through the Teach Yourself, though I have never found the time to do so. But you have to have some ability when it comes to learning languages. Otherwise reading the original in part, instead of comparing various translations, can become an exercise in masochism rather than an appreciation of literature.

[RamonaQ]

However, I cannot do that for Ancient Greek, as I never learnt any at school. I am at times tempted to go through the Teach Yourself, though I have never found the time to do so. But you have to have some ability when it comes to learning languages. Otherwise reading the original in part, instead of comparing various translations, can become an exercise in masochism rather than an appreciation of literature.

I'm not sure if that would be enough for poetry. How much knowledge of a language is necessary in order to be able to judge the quality of a translation? And what about languages that are less common so Teach Yourself books aren't available?

For instance, this seemingly simpe poem translated from Innuit by two translators. I'd love to know enough Innuit to be able to read the original!

“The great sea ...”


“The great sea ...”



By Uvavnuk Uvavnuk Translated By Jane Hirshfield
The great sea
frees me, moves me,
as a strong river carries a weed.
Earth and her strong winds
move me, take me away,
and my soul is swept up in joy.

Uvavnuk, untitled shaman song, translated by Jane Hirshfield, from Women in Praise of the Sacred (New York: HarperCollins, 1994). Reprinted with the permission of the translator.

Source: Women in Praise of the Sacred (HarperCollins Publishers Inc, 1994)


source: http://www.poetryfoundation.org/poem/178451


and:

The Great Sea has set me
in motion
Set me adrift
And I move as a weed in
the river.
The arch of sky
And mightiness of storms
Encompass me,
And I am left
Trembling with joy.


source: http://www.oocities.org/yosemite/tra...InnuitPoem.htm

[Eric]

What sparked off some of my comments on this thread was when I used my pretty basic knowledge of Hungarian to look at a few poems originally written in that language, and found that the translation sometimes erred by miles. The whole meaning, rhythm, syntax, etc., was diiferent, and words and images had been added or subtracted willy-nilly.

Poetry, because it looks short on the page, seems to attract a few completely charlatan translators who rely on the fact that the language they are translating from is relatively rare and no one will bother to check up.

Comparing two English versions of something and shutting out the original is a logical absurdity. It's like looking at two painted portraits of someone and discussing the ambience, brush-strokes and likeness without being allowed to look at a photo of that person. The portrait may be interesting as a work of art, but does the painting resemble the sitter in any way? A translation must likewise get near to the original, not be the ego-trip of the translator.