Having translated a few long works from Middle English into modern English (one posted on my blog, the others for use in my own classroom), I'm sympathetic to the complaints of the reviewer. Translating from ME involves line-by-line trade-offs between form, diction, and story, but there's no good reason to avoid using "canon," "yeoman," and other medieval terms with a brief explanatory footnote. When I see a translation that modernizes these and other very specific medieval concepts, I worry that the translator hasn't spent enough time thinking about which aspects of the original poem are timeless and which elements are specifically, stubbornly medieval.
Your observation concerning translating ME strikes a consonant chord with me, Jeff.
FWIW, I was a student of Burton Raffel (who was a one-year visiting Professor of Distinktion, IIRC); wondered where he'd landed . . .
Hard to believe someone could actually conceive of doing such massive travestatious damage to a verray parfit work; but, then, Raffel never did seem, to me, to care about the kind of damage nor desecration he wrought upon the works and writing of others . . .
Stunning brutality, IMO. Wonder what Neal Stephenson or, if he could have, David Foster Wallace would have thought of this kind of shameless pitched swindlery . . . Newspeak knows no bounds nor boundaries . . . Talk egregiosity to a brutally incomprehensible degree.
I really have no basis for impugning Raffel's motives--I'm willing to assume he made this translation in good faith--but I do suspect the publisher is trying to capitalize on the recent successes of Heaney's Beowulf and Armitage's Sir Gawain. Unfortunately, I can never be sure if these new translations indicate a renewed interest in medieval literature or are simply evidence of the tendency of people who read the New York Times and listen to National Public Radio to run out and buy whatever book is being gabbed about at the moment.
Prolly a bit of both, Jeff; plus, there's that element, always, once an individual reaches a certain age, of revisiting the works most profoundly affecting them in their salad days.
As for Raffel's motives; unfortunately, during my first year at uni, gullibility still swathed yours truly.
(IOW, I wouldn't trust him if his head were presented to me on a ten-foot flaming platter with very good reason; so, yes, I think he cynically saw Heaney and Armitage's entries into the sweet-stakes and decided he'd go for the goad. Once a toad, always a toad; and, hey, I'm being restrained and kinda nice, here.)
BTW, while I am here, might I say, on a more positive note, it's always a delight to discover a teacher who cares for his students more than his own egoistic needs; good on you and for your students, too. (Like your blog, IOW, too.)
Having translated a few long works from Middle English into modern English (one posted on my blog, the others for use in my own classroom), I'm sympathetic to the complaints of the reviewer. Translating from ME involves line-by-line trade-offs between form, diction, and story, but there's no good reason to avoid using "canon," "yeoman," and other medieval terms with a brief explanatory footnote. When I see a translation that modernizes these and other very specific medieval concepts, I worry that the translator hasn't spent enough time thinking about which aspects of the original poem are timeless and which elements are specifically, stubbornly medieval.
ReplyDeleteYour observation concerning translating ME strikes a consonant chord with me, Jeff.
ReplyDeleteFWIW, I was a student of Burton Raffel (who was a one-year visiting Professor of Distinktion, IIRC); wondered where he'd landed . . .
Hard to believe someone could actually conceive of doing such massive travestatious damage to a verray parfit work; but, then, Raffel never did seem, to me, to care about the kind of damage nor desecration he wrought upon the works and writing of others . . .
Stunning brutality, IMO. Wonder what Neal Stephenson or, if he could have, David Foster Wallace would have thought of this kind of shameless pitched swindlery . . . Newspeak knows no bounds nor boundaries . . . Talk egregiosity to a brutally incomprehensible degree.
I really have no basis for impugning Raffel's motives--I'm willing to assume he made this translation in good faith--but I do suspect the publisher is trying to capitalize on the recent successes of Heaney's Beowulf and Armitage's Sir Gawain. Unfortunately, I can never be sure if these new translations indicate a renewed interest in medieval literature or are simply evidence of the tendency of people who read the New York Times and listen to National Public Radio to run out and buy whatever book is being gabbed about at the moment.
ReplyDeleteProlly a bit of both, Jeff; plus, there's that element, always, once an individual reaches a certain age, of revisiting the works most profoundly affecting them in their salad days.
ReplyDeleteAs for Raffel's motives; unfortunately, during my first year at uni, gullibility still swathed yours truly.
(IOW, I wouldn't trust him if his head were presented to me on a ten-foot flaming platter with very good reason; so, yes, I think he cynically saw Heaney and Armitage's entries into the sweet-stakes and decided he'd go for the goad. Once a toad, always a toad; and, hey, I'm being restrained and kinda nice, here.)
BTW, while I am here, might I say, on a more positive note, it's always a delight to discover a teacher who cares for his students more than his own egoistic needs; good on you and for your students, too. (Like your blog, IOW, too.)