Translation and Criticism

Transcription

1 The Iow Review Volume 2 Issue 2 Spring Article Trnsltion Criticism Frederic Will Follow this dditionl wks t: Prt Cretive Writing Commons Recommended Cittion Will, Frederic. "Trnsltion Criticism." The Iow Review 2.2 (1971): Web. Avilble t: This Contents is brought to you f free open ccess by Iow Reserch Online. It hs been ccepted f inclusion in The Iow Review by n uthized dministrt Iow Reserch Online. F me infmtion, plese contct lib-ir@uiow.edu.

2 Trnsltion Criticism Frederic Will At conference in Pris, in Mrch, 1967, I herd Polish French poets trnslts discuss trnsltion. Their immedite me ws three problems nthologies recent Polish poetry trnslted into English, French, Germn respectively. But y went, course, quickly fr out beyond topic t h. To ir effts t discussing problems trnsltion ws dded strik tht much conference's discussion ing piquncy: trnsltion ws cr ried on mens by trnsltion. Tht sitution mde whole event me meningful thn I could quite nlyze. The discussers were reby put into n unusul position. Some ir were nlyses communicted to one n in medium fm which ws n exmple thing y were discussing. The conditions ir ct communiction were most comment to be mde on contents elont ir communiction. Not only difficulty trnsltion ws illustrted, by tht sitution; but lso fct tht even in tlking bout trnsltion we go out be yond our nlyses, fget how difficult it is f us even to discuss diffi culty one n cross brriers. understing It is in vrious wys wth thinking bout wht kinds llevition trns ltion cn be, to burden brriers. We ten think it cn provide in new f wht ws written in n This equivlents,,. concept needs close equivlents equivlence look, f it opens do to flock confusions. I hve fought with ide lredy, but it is well wth to here. returning 'Equivlence' usully mens, in kind cse I m thinking, 'vlue in new which is like wth vlue tht from which trns ltion ws mde, I hve iginl.' lredy exmined some roots?onto logicl politicl? this conviction: here I simply stte it. Sometimes this conviction joins with belief tht trnsltions cn del very freely with ir sometimes with iginls, opposite belief, tht trnsltions must be very, s it is clled, 'literl.' Eir se views, spectrum possibilities lying between m, cn be suppted by kind equivlence-conviction I describe. These views hve in opposed common, in present cse, conviction tht y represent wys estblishing equivlence. There is n lterntive to this definition, t lest n wy t looking it; view trnsltion which if not iginl is t lest unthodox, which is bcked up by mny contexts, which hs merit describing trnsltion's reltion to min lmss meningful uses. 97 Criticism University Iow is collbting with JSTOR to digitize, preserve, extend ccess to The Iow Review

3 Trnsltion deserves, under certin conditions, to be considered n exten sion n iginl wk, s s we sometimes consider quite literlly literry criticism n literry extension literture itself. I men exten scholrship by sion something entirely different from trnsltion s vrition imittion (in Robert Lowell's sense), in which gret ltitude is provided f interprettion. 'Interprettion is frightening wd. The notion it returns us to duller spects equivlence, non-ontologicl spects. I men t this to con point sider trnsltion s continution ltent in n impulse iginl. From shelf I pick book by Ren? Chr red: Le ne po?te s'irrite ps de l'extinction hideuse de l mt, mis confint en son toucher prticulier trnsfme toute chose en lines prolong?es, n, trnslted on opposite pge: The poet is not ngry t hideous extinction deth, but confident his own prticulr touch, he trnsfms everything into long The ineptitude this trnsltion results from giving in to most pedestrin sense But wht use equivlence. would even me cretive sense equiv lence hve been here? Of wht interest could it hve been in this cse even to imitte (in Lowell's sense) imgintively? One could hrdly hve done me thn, sy, mke dringly explicit mggoty, spindly spects physicl deth. This would hve helped, but could perhps best h?ve been chieved by cretive trnsltion out from center French. Like this, f strt: wools. The shper poems (1) is not rwed by (2) tngible strngle grsp (3) deth, but turns it (4), trusting his touch, into fingers (5), endurble skeins. One my hed, first, f dominnt sense-experience iginl, which here is tctile. (Not mphous indifferent, s equivlent-version sug Then hints from to ccumulte. One relizes wht gests). iginl begin to do with 'lines prolong?es,' tht y cn be relted to 'toucher.' Hence 'fingers' (5) 'skeins.' One goes f etymologicl culturl resonnces (s in 1, 2, 3) which convey sense iginl's efft texture. One specifies (4) where iginl could ffd to be generl in its reference: with its 'toute chose' which equivlent trnsltion simply wters down. In sht, even in my rough version n extension-trnsltion, one my follow up vriety promptings, in iginl, in n ttempt to continue its wk, not to find n equivlent it. Such progrm d hoc strtegies my wer f into nrchy. One cn go wild picking up ll hints, be left in end with picnic linguistic oddities. This would be following too privte course. Wht I sid, concerning dominnt sense-pressure this pssge, my serve s clue to kinds 98

4 vilble here to trnslt. shping In present pssge problem is reltively s simple, it is in ll poetry poetic prose which from internlized The springs strongly sense-experience. texture chief component sense will in reder mke itself promptly cler. no so Usully, though, obviously thred is lid gniztionl down, s is cler in considering, sy, L Divin Commedi, Les Fleurs du Androm, Ml. In those cses one must listen. Felt senses motion?upwrd, downwrd, in wrd, outwrd?will in Dnte join ml issues so s to suggest strtegies, recurrent tropes, linguistic behvi. A lyric poet, like Budelire, might need to be pproched through puns sound-ptterns, whose suggestibility seemed t first quite rom, but on second turned out to be crucil clues. reding (Think sense--sound between ply 'soeur' 'douceur,' LIII, be tween end-rhymes like 'tige' 'vertige,' XL VIL) Tht this sketch progrm is wth considering grows convincing only when one considers, in its light, wht it is tht wk with n, through trnsltion, cn As ccomplish. trnslt, one hs first to n penetrte with his own. This sounds odd, but is true. 'Po?te' 'hideuse' 'mt' re necessrily ddressed, by us, through English wds which hve introduced us to those three 'Po?te' first specific mening-giving signs. mens, to us, in terms it 'poet.' Secondly mens, to us, wht we through my hppen subsently to know its roots {potetes, ' mker,' in Greek), its culturl resonnces, its tonl qulities. Third, course, it mens ll this through wht it grs bestows significnce from, in its context in its own wk. One job trnslt, especilly trnslt poetic, is to nourish foster ny ll se menings, letting m grow from ir iginl soil out through his wds into ir nturl deployment, t lest into one ir possible unfoldings. Similrly with whole mening iginl poem, sty, We need to ply. let it flower into our wds. 'Our'? It would be too little to sy tht this view trets trnsltion s mens to our own I m convinced t lest tht. I see extending. mny cses in which trnsltion should clsh with nms speech writing system from which it emerges. (Zuksky's trnsltions Ctullus re brillint exmple totl clsh.) This kind clsh cn be ex tremely fruitful to ny s, we know in English from effects our gretest trnsltions?chpmn's Pope's Homer, King Jmes Bible, Fitzgerld's Rubiyt?ll which hve moved boundries our frr out round us, so tht we bre me freely inside it. I m on whole, though, thinking nothing so gr, when I spek letting wds iginl flower into your wds; yet I m thinking concerned something intimtely, densely, with ex experimentlly tension. I think wy one cn enter feign, wk out with it into number its intentions, especilly into its guiding intention. Finlly I think possibilities occupying, in this wy, some no mn's l which lies between some s, tht tertium quid territy which con stitutes idel between prticulr s. This mens bring towrd one's own It involves one's ing feign. extending 99 Criticism

5 own, but doing tht through building bridge bck into one's own from one feign hs gone out into. The notion equiv lence fers us flse ide blnce in vlues in different s. Al such trnsltions s I've discussed here though my never sense com give re becuse re in stte pleteness, y incomplete only y permnently cretive emergence from wht is trnslted. Wht being y emerge towrd is tht single, universl which ech us bers deep in him, s o reticl hizon which mkes linguistic ctulity possible. From trnsltion relistic novelist which would in sense ny be de qute, to similr kind trnsltion Ren? Chr, would be gret distnce. I m conscious hving llowed f trnsltion in both se senses. I'm lso wre tht erlier in this essy, where I ws to estblish trying context?philo sophicl histicl?f free liberl employment trnsltion, I ws lso creting context which would suppt fr me conventionl view ctivity. A wld public literry mtter, to which ttention ws clled re, is no me invittion to Christopher Logue thn it would be to trnslt Zol. Ech m could find, in public mteries, justifiction f his own pro cedure s trnslt. This essy hs hinted, so fr, t remrkble kind possibility f trns ltion, I should like to let my conclusion circle bout tht possibility, rr thn come to rest on blnced equble reltivism, kind justified by lst two sentences preceding prgrph. (Though point mde through tht reltivism seems to me mde to st. ) There is in certinly nothing wrong certin cses with equivlence-trns ltion n prose, is re scrosnct in intentions nything developing wher iginl, poetry prose, business which in most hs?some times, sy, in Pound's?leds to ftuously results. The ltter ungrounded ctivity is, however, certinly me fertile dring two, if we cn t sme time find, in it, hints plusible methods, we my be some lerning vluble bout ll kinds trnsltion. It deserves finl thing try. The plusible hints lie hidden in direction trnslt's wk; bck into iginl, n out gin in direction proposed by it. Certinly, be cuse I hven't been tht creful t definition, this verbl movement is likely to sound like very dring 'following curve iginl,' in sense I suppose it is. But in exmple from Chr, which I consciously kept smll unmbitious, less thn tht ws shown on wht ws shown seems to going me to hve been necessry minimum, f trnsltion which mkes ny clims on us. clims (Prticulrly ccurcy.) Wht ws on going ws, on one level, kind etymologicl busy wk; s in movement bck into 'po?te,' 's'irriter,' 'extinction.' But tht ws busywk prt out wht ws in finding it ssume its bsic In 'lines iginl, letting menings gin. prolong?es,' me ws lredy, done. Also, I think, in 'trnsfme' into 'turns turning it.' From on etymologizing up, t tht point, trnsltion mens bringing bck, into version some its texture. iginl, toughness, density, 100

6 This much, I believe, ws done even in 'flttest' being 'strightest' instnces prose trnsltion. I know tht ws one motives behind successive versions sht mking sty Fm. To sy lot in nuce, tht is wht I ws fter when in trnslting tht Polish sty I chnged Mr. downstirs to men's Posg, coming room, ws nerest to monument, which behved so he sw most unusully, clerly how Fm moved her h, rised hn to her lips, gve sound shrp into Mr. who ws downstirs to men's Posg, coming room, ws nerest to monument when it behved so unusully, it ws he who sw most clerly how Fm moved her h, rised hn to her lips, blew shrply. It ws not ll I ws fter?becuse I ws lso concerned with kind inner sybility in English?but it ws prt. I ws fter moderte resttion iginl's vitl qulities. Bsic resttion, n, my be suitble fmul f moment, my once help, me, to remove ny sense tht trnsltion is unless indequte it chieves rdicl freedom. A quite different sense, I think, should ride in wke this fmul; sense function trnsltion s kind criticism, t lest s n ctivity relted to criticism. significntly On busywk level gin, trnsltion 'bsic' kind is process constnt choice, is thus, from outset, 'criticl,' in 'judgmentl,' recognized senses those terms. The decision wher to write sound' 'blew 'gve shrp shrply' is complicted, if not very interesting, cse such bsic criticism. The decision involves our notions whole context phrse?thus wk involved, idelly, by extension, uth's whole oeuvre; ll this involves, course, our ers' our our sense shrpness, linguistic preprtion, mbience mood in lived life. On this busywk level, trnsltion involves deciding wht effect wk is iming t; defending one's decision by show ing pro. A lot wht we usully consider prcticl criticism certinly does no me, not much differently, thn tht. Is trnsltion ever me thn tht kind busywk? Trnsltion ny criticl wth is not only wk modified n ctive know phrse-by-phrse by ing whole text; but it is both those ctivities wking toger. Wht is hrd to nlyze is this: tht joining those two ctivities, if crried out by process resttion seems to constitute some iginl's vitlity, thing like cretive process tht went into mking iginl. Not only is this hrd to but it needs we seeming nlyze, nlysis. don't wnt to Surely dmit tht good trnsltions, wks criticism in tht good sense, re s cretive s iginl cretions to which y re pplied. We don't, just s we nturlly reject ide tht good discursive criticism?from Aristotle to Lukcs to mkes itself Frye?somehow equl' to body 101 Criticism

7 literture by f it. Wht mrks ccounting iginl literry wk, in ll cses, is texture density which re to it. uni The trnsltion t best is criti cism which renders kind ccount se fcts. But it is not becoming m, in ccounting f m. As tht, trnsltion in its criticl function remins kind gurdin our concern f literture. It n ccount significnt gives such literture, is thus, t its most mbitious, s s most discursive spiring spiring wks which we usully gree to cll criticism. And tht is not, t this point, to trnsltion s cretion. If trnsltion s 'ccount' is spek mening still not yet fully wked out, it is neverless clerly distinct from 'cretion.' Where one ct in wds, trnsltion, to trnsfm itself into n begins, criticism, it is likely tht we will be especilly ble to see wht first, deprting, ws. It is privileged moment. Tht moment ws invited, in lst- n to prgrphs, by ttempt probe difference between trnsltion criticism, s different kinds ccount texts. iginl I suppose we need once me, in der to tke this distinction frr, to invoke insubstntility iginl texts. We need to think gin, befe dis ccounts cussing fully, bout wht in such cses we re n ccount. giving texts re not icons. re Originl They symboliclly coded ptterns move ment; intention, rgument, expression both, me. re neir They hrd n st, but re bsiclly process. I like to think m s prticipil, rr thn nounlike verblike. Wks literture, re to trnslte, hve chrcter, nture ech by ech, which is like ir substnce, ir mrk personlity; but cn y mke this substnce cler, indeed ctul, en only by it. cting Tht ction is ir verblike side, needed to revel nouns in m. In this sense re enct y, literry iginls, prticiples. They nouns y re, by verbs. becoming They become verbs by encting nouns re. y I touched se fcts in hinting t problem trnslting, in generl t ll. I mention m now f new to ssure us purpose: continuing directly into this lst how wher trnsltion differs from criti stion cism. Into this stion kinds ccount provided by two ctivities. There re three min differences between two ctivities: first: wthwhile trnsltion ccounts f its iginl by being physi clly plqu?, lmost plstered, ginst it. Tlk this kind is needed, to rid phenomenon in stion. I think this occurs on plquing eir two plnes encounter; eir prllel to iginl text, ginst motion which it seems to lie, tht text's motion t bsbing dequting every out point; beyond tht text, on text's course tking movement, s I sid receiving, in Chr thrust initilly repeted exmple, text's movement. Neir se re positionings?which spiritul fcts, not com metphs?is wht In no cse does trnsltion not lso pletely hppens. significnt prllel recoil, with iginl's thrust, bck into mbience its own ; 102

8 n does trnsltion ever not in thrust-continuing mny wys drw continuous nourishment from we process cll its But in iginl. every wthwhile trns ltion re is fct one se kinds physicl reltionship to iginl. Criticism is different. Wher descriptive (Frye), prescriptive (Levis), metphysicl (Brs, Stiger), criticism hs eir much less sensuous to its much less sensuous one. I think here reltionship iginl, continuously even Levis, hrd his exmple; criticism, not without texture though gret density its own, is fr less densely relted to its object, sy to Lwrence novel, thn good trnsltion tht novel would be. As fr s ccounting goes, criticism is n bstrction. It is f instnce much less ble thn trnsltion to ccount f process which iginl not only is, but on which iginl depends f everything tht deploys elucidtes its own chrcter. second: follows from first difference. Criticl choices re indeed op ertive t every level on trnslting; on phrse-level, level whole wk. This pplies eqully to prllel to rc-continuing kinds trnsltion. These choices, however, operte strictly within limits set by iginl text; by tht process, in, which is being converted. This is constriction which in sensuousness costs. It is gin gret expense. There is course sense in which f trnsltion prerequisites dequte re unlimited, thus in which we cn clim tht even trnslt's most locl choices require whtever experience he hs hd in his own, in s; it following tht trnsltion incrntes whole its mker is, s fully s ny iginl wk done. In sense, s I sy, this is true; reson it is why lso true, tht trns ltion is restricting field choice, is tht trnslting provides only very smll perture through which trnslt cn drw his generlly very lrge linguis tic sensibilities. On occsion?perhps in Chpmn, Pope, Fitzgerld?this very smllness cts s incentive, in wy limittion And in prosodie might. I generl, suppose, it does not ct s deterrent, s sieve. But merely tht is Trnsltion is enough. quite especilly choosing-ginst--bckground--pre thus in terms rr rrnged-syntx, choosing presuggested possibilities, within trnslt's own. Criticism, ny vrieties I hve mentioned, is me distnt thn trnsltion from process which is its object. (Wht kinds ccount, in fct, could be s s close-fitting trnsltion?) At sme time criticism is much freer in its references freer thn implictions, trnsltion to deflect se out wy from text it is considering, to drw m in from texts. It is lso free, course, to select s rdiclly s it cn, in finding detils it wnts to exmine, remining only with m. It is no requirement criticism, in ny its fms, tht it should ccount f wholeness wks, even f whole m. By contrst with this, ccount given by trnslt seems free chiefly in freedom his iginl decision which wk to tret. third: trnsltion tends towrd good fusion, in its own process iginl is. If criticism is chiefly wy trying process, with to sy wht n 103 Criticism

9 iginl is, trnsltion is chiefly wy n The ctive mrrow sying iginl. even most liberl good trnsltion is on lon. The wk conventionl criticism is its own substnce its own mot fce. Trnsltion, f this re son, tends to be notion meningless prt from its while iginl; criticism, by very lest defence, hs hlf-life its own; s someone like Frye might imginbly rgue, hs kind ontologicl priity even to literture, which it nmes Ur-fms. This is precisely where difficulty rises, in determining wher trns ltion is fm criticism, it is too imptnt point to see trpped in s tions terminology. Trnsltion is in t lest two senses genuine, infmtive, ccount texts. It cn enriching be, s we sw in cse Chr, rest tion fces vlues iginl. It cn be wy getting inside those vlues pushing m out, so to spek, so tht y cn be seen with fresh wds ttched to m. And it cn be wy mking new sensuous mtic textures which 'ccount' f, 'give n ccount,' iginl's tex tures. As n 'ccount,' however, it lcks freedom distncing, reference, power to which re crucil to wht we reify, consider cts generlly pre senting knowble. About se cts re is everything still to sy. But s we see m beginning to ssume definite boundries, t end spectrum species trnsltion, we hve renewed sense ir usefulness, s defin ers wht trnsltion both is cnnot be. This is n obli, but useful, wy to tlk bout wht criticism is. Fyd Jmis is Cubn poet (bn 1930) who lived five yers in Pris, now edits Union, review Cubn writers union. His "P Est Libertd" is test cse f y fered in my essy. There is little, lmost no, ltitude f trnslt this poem. wds re Jmis' everydy wds; but re not y "flse friends," do not hve in mselves menings, verblly consid ered, which seem not to y hve. Yet re is pround problem involved in this trnslting poem. The poem is "revolutionry" poem, in specil sense Cubn histy hs given to tht wd. The Cubn mening "liberty" shpes Cubn mening "fc ties," "sweet entrils The Ameri "oppresss," people." cn trnslt cn do bout this he must trns nothing problem; lte directly hope f best. He cnnot "criticize" while trns lting ticizing. this poem, except in sense tht not criticizing, here, is cri Ferno Retmr is n estblished Cubn in poet?bn 1930, used to hrd wk like dishwshing in New Yk City, but now member revolutionry uthity. This poem his does not present "revolutionry" problems found in Jmis' poem; it fers 104

10 opptunities f interprettion. Those opptunities re smll delicte: how to ctch prt physicl, prt spiritul tone liger mente sobrehumnos; how to wd resonnce in pproximte comestibles bebestibles; how to meet unusully ex fged pression, diecisiete rostros de l sonris. We hve tken few rre steps in trnsltion. But we hve tried to compenste lightly, f some our problems, by slightly f-nml timbre in our version. This is ten s fr s trnslt cn go towrd criticism. But it is long wy. Frederic Will FELICES LOS NORMALES Felices los nmles, esos seres extr?os. Los no tuvieron un mdre loc, un pdre brcho, un hijo delincuente, Un cs en un ningun prte, enfermedd desconocid, Los no hn sido clcindos un m p devnte, Los vivieron los diecisiete rostros de l sonris y un poco m?s. Los llenos de zptos, los con rc?ngeles sombreros, Los stisfechos, los los gdos, lindos, Los rintint?n y sus secuces, los c?mo no, p qu?, Los gnn, los son hst l ridos empu?dur, Los flutists comp?dos p rtones, Los vendedes sus y comprdes, Los cblleros ligermente sobrehumnos, Los hombres vestidos de truenos y ls mujeres de rel?mpgos, los delicdos, los senstos, los finos, Los mbles, los dulces, los comestibles, y los bebestibles. Felices ls ves, el esti?rcol, ls piedrs. Pero den pso los hcen los mundos y los sue?os, Ls ilusiones, ls sinfon?s, ls nos plbrs desbrtn Y nos construyen, los m?s locos sus mdres, los m?s brchos Que sus pdres y m?s delicuentes sus hijos Y m?s devdos mes p clcinntes. Que les dejen su sitio en el infierno, y bst. Ferno Retmr Criticism