Translation
Ashley Levins

            While reading a text, it is easy to overlook the footnote or asterisk meant to emphasize the translator’s name. It is not always obvious that the work is even a translation. Richard Wilbur is a translator of Moliére, but is more often recognized for his own writings. Why would a writer want to translate someone else’s work for less credit? In translating Tartuffe, Wilbur sticks to the strict rhyme scheme of the original. How much time does it take to produce good translation? What is “good” translation? Whose translation of Tartuffe is more accurate; Wilbur, who kept the rhyme scheme, or someone else who decided to leave it out? Who decides if the translation is accurate or not, and whose translations are the best? These are the founding questions for this paper and the drive behind the writings and research of many others who are trying to define the impossible.

A poet has two options when wanting to familiarize his or her audience with a text written in a different language. They can take the time to teach the audience the other language or translate the work for them. The latter choice seems easier. When striving to understand translation, it is necessary to recognize that words themselves, in any language, are only symbols for specific objects. Therefore, every person in the world is, by their own right, a translator as a result of the mind’s reading process (Jackson, 1). However, many view poetic translation as an art form (Rose, 116). It has been said that a literary translator can comment on the “craft of translation” only as far as a poet can the “craft of poetry” (Biguenet, 54). The target language is generally the translator’s native tongue (Rose, 3), and a consensus is that the translation should be like “the broken pieces of a vase, to be joined again, (they) must fit at every point, though none may be exactly like the other” (Biguenet, 13). Poetic translation is a delicate and tedious undertaking that must be handled with patience and respect for language. Therefore, it is most successfully completed by poets.

Translating can be an overwhelming process unless it is broken down into steps. However, it is necessary to remember that one cannot “make conscious and logical something that is, most of the time, unconscious, instinctive” (Biguenet, 117) and unscientific. Many books can be found that try to teach the “art of translation,” but each one breaks down the process in a different way. One breaks the procedure into six steps: preliminary analysis, exhaustive style and content analysis, acclimation of the text, reformulation of the text, analysis of the translation, and review and comparison (Rose, 1-5). Many variations of this guideline exist, but this particular categorization contains a more explicit description of the translation process. In the first two steps the translator must determine their reasons for wanting to translate the text and any cultural dangers that should be noted (Rose, 1). Next, acclimation of the text involves the beginning of the text changing process (Rose, 2). In this step, the translation goes from “internal to external” (Rose, 2) or from the translator’s mind to the paper. The translator must decide what is unalterable in the text and the best way to bring it into the target language (Rose, 2). Some expressions may have English equivalences or may be most effective left in their original form and explained by the translator. For clarification, the translator may decide to use footnoting (Rose, 2). The fourth step involves the actual translating from word to word, which is usually done sentence by sentence (Rose, 3). Modifications to earlier observations are made in this step (Rose, 3). The analysis process involves at least three revisions and reviews of the text usually with a span of time between each one (Rose, 4). The last step involves the editing and reviewing of the translator’s work by someone else, usually an editor (Rose, 5). Whether or not the original author would recognize his or her own work in its new form is a good question to keep in mind while translating (Biguenet, 125).

Even though there are no set rules for translating, some generally defined mistakes that should be avoided do exist. A translating mistake is something that misconstrues the original text’s meaning in some way. The worst mistake that can be made is to say, “that’s what it says in the original” (Biguenet, 117). There is no such thing as an exact word for word translation because no two words exist in two different languages that mean exactly the same thing and have the same cultural connotations. A word for word translation is not enough. The translator must show that they understand what they are translating (Rose, 4) and that they have interpreted the meaning of the original words (Biguenet, 1). A reader may be able to interpret some of the words and language themselves with a little help from footnotes and a little common sense so over translating is not necessary (Biguenet, 36). Overly explicit translation of some poetic elements that are purposefully ambiguous, such as Voltaire’s jokes, may only take away from the text’s original humor or intended wit (Biguenet, 80-1). Samuel Johnson wrote, “We try its effect as an English poem; that is the way to judge the merit of translation” (Jackson, 2). Good translation is not like a mirror reflection of someone, but rather the similarities between a father and son where great differences are obvious, but the “air” about them and something in their eyes is the same (Jackson, 4). William Weaver talks about how he never reads his translations after they are published because, if he did he, “would soon be reaching for a pencil, to make further additions and subtractions, in the futile pursuit of a nonexistent perfection” (Biguenet, 124). It is this “air” that all translators strive to achieve, and its ambiguousness makes translation a never-ending process.

The trouble with translation does not end with the demand of the knowledge of two languages. Problems arise with the translator needing to have some knowledge of the historical, social and cultural context of the poem (Ali, 1). Metaphors, similes and idiomatic expressions (Ali, 1) are also difficult to deal with since they will rarely ever make sense when translated literally because they are unique to a specific culture. Poetry translation is tedious because “form, rhythm, sound, harmony (and) tone” all contribute to the poem and demand consideration (Jones, 187). Poems sometimes have meaning in their layout, and it is up to the translator to determine just how important this layout is to the poem. If the text contains any dialogue the translator must make it sound like an actual conversation that could take place (Jones, 187). When translating insults it is necessary to look not at the words that make up the offense but at the effect that it has on its recipient (Biguenet, 3). The indèfini (French) tense has no direct equivalent in English and is impossible to translate (Biguenet, 73). When translating from Japanese the biggest problem is that many words are untranslatable (Biguenet, 150).

As if the linguistic difficulties are not enough, the troubles continue. The audience presents possible obstacles for the translator. The modern reader may need relief from the “overly strict meter” of some poems where the original audience did not (Biguenet, 41). This is usually only a problem when translating older works. A translation should also contain both a “spirit of the foreign language” and a “spirit of English” (Biguenet, 143). Jones teaches, “There are dangers in being extreme,” both in sticking too closely to the original text and in straying too far away (161). Also, it will always be arguable that the work is not the original author’s, but the original work of a translator instead (Jackson, 1). Famous writer, Robert Frost said, “Poetry is what is lost in translation” while Joseph Brodsky contended, “poetry is what is gained in translation” (Jackson, 2). Octavio Paz, who decided that things were not complicated enough, said “poetry is what gets transformed,” and Tomas Transtromer said that a poem is an invisible thing written beyond the reaches of all language (Jackson, 2). Andrei Voznesnsky seemed to agree when he said, “languages are many but poetry is one” (Jackson, 2). Yang Wan-Li, a Chinese poet, confuses many by saying that you can take away words and meaning “and still there is poetry” (Jackson, 2). Any reader could spend a lifetime wondering if they were reading a “transformed” poem, a new piece of literature, an unreliable exact copy of a poem, or a poem that is able to transcend meaning and language and speak directly to the audience. This shows that no one really knows how to define poetry or translation, and the topics become less definite when combined.

Translation problems arise from the actual language being translated and this difficulty is easier to recognize when looking at specific examples. Arabic poetry has been a source of frustration for some translators such as A. Wormhoudt (Ali, 1). The Arabic culture has an incomparable amount of “interdependence” between daily life and poetry (Ali, 1). Arabic poetry is a reflection of the nomadic lifestyle and “the monorhyme is the verbal counterpart of the camel’s simultaneous and symmetrical leg movement” (Ali, 2). This would be impossible for a translator to convey simply by translating the poem. In this culture poetry is looked at as the model for correct grammar and writing (Ali, 1), whereas in English it is acceptable for poetry to be the antithesis to grammatical rules. This complicated language contains at least fifty words to describe one’s hand after being touched depending on what has touched it (Ali, 2). With so many words meaning the same thing, the language is constantly changing and words quickly become obsolete (Ali, 4). Another problem that arises with such a vast language is the absence of English equivalents, which may lead to ambiguity in the translation (Ali, 3). Even though the translated words may be correct, the translator should not assume that they have accurately portrayed the original author’s work. It may be necessary for the translator to explain cultural connotations either through elaborating within the context of the poem or adding footnotes (Ali, 5). In Arab, the owl is used as a sign of a bad omen but this is not true in Western culture. The translator in this circumstance may decide that changing the type of bird to a vulture may be more effective than footnoting (Ali, 5). The word “acshâ” roughly translates to the phrase “the whole of a ruined heart,” but this translation fails to imply the surrounding gambling connotations (Ali, 4). The aforementioned are just a few of the problems that arise from translating from Arabic to English. This shows that specific problems will arise depending entirely on the language being translated.

With all of these problems to deal with one cannot help but wonder why a poet would want to take on this task. The second step of translation says that the poet must determine their reason for wanting to translate a work (Rose, 1). The most obvious reason is economics (Rose, 116). Translating the classics is a good way for poets to earn a living between publications. Many translate for no other reason than to make a dollar. Baudelaire mastered English to translate Poe because he wanted his countrymen to know Poe’s works (Rose, 119). Imagine being the only person in a country familiar with a certain writer because of language barriers. Anyone in this situation would be willing to translate an author that they admire in order to produce an audience that could share an appreciation for that writer. Translating forces poets to master the art of words and language. Kenneth Rexroth said, “the writer who can project himself into exultation of another learns more than the craft of words. He learns the stuff of poetry” (Biguenet, 1). Poets learn to emulate great writers through translation and allow this knowledge to lead their own writing to perfection (Jackson, 5). They must learn to write and think like the original author (Biguenet, 28). If a poet can learn to write like an author of the “classics” then he, too, may be able to produce a work that will last forever. Tomaz Salamun shows influences of Rimbaud because he has translated him (Jackson, 4). Some use it as an “actor’s medium” which allows them to feel like they are creating (Jackson, 5), and it may allow them to voice something that they are not quite ready to say themselves (Jackson, 4). For some, translating presents a challenge and they find pleasure in producing a rendition that they believe is more correct than anyone else’s (Biguenet, 70). Donald Frame challenged himself to create a better translation of Moliére than Richard Wilbur (Biguenet, 77). In the end it, appears that the main reason for translating is to show respect to a writer for whom the translator holds in admiration. A poet’s work being made available in another language by a translator is the ultimate sign of respect.

Interestingly, the art of translating literary works began as a control tactic over the poorer class. Between the years 1558 and 1658, the amount of existing translations increased almost four fold (Conley, 18). This period came to be known as the translation movement (Conley, 18). Before this sparked “interest in the classics,” the only translated documents produced were scientific and historical (Conley, 20-1). This translation movement was evidence of a new interest in religion and liberal government and signs of a renaissance movement (Conley, 22-3). This change eventually allowed more freedom of expression because it set the precedent of translating literary works, but it started as a means of regulating and keeping control over the people. The upper class Elizabethans of this time pushed for the classics to be translated for the lower class because of their messages of non- rebellious tendencies (Conley, 48). The ancient works usually had the masses under one leader who always knew what was best for his people. They also believed that increased education was a stronger “safeguard” against “uprising” than military force (Conley, 48). The books that were once reserved for the educated few were made available in the common language allowing the lower class a chance to read them.

The nature of translation lends itself well to poets. Translation demands the same creative talents as writing (Rose, 125); therefore poets tend to produce the best translations. The richness of the language and the mastery necessary to produce good translation shows that it probably does take a poet to translate verse (Jones, 212). Poets are accustomed to the imperfect and ambiguous nature of poetry, which is easily applied to translating. Translators must always be aware of other possibilities and open to other interpretations (Biguenet, 12), and writers of poetry tend to be liberal and willing to look at things from different perspectives. The translators must be great writers in order to make the translation effective (Rose, 119). Translating also helps poets to perfect their art of writing. Even though translating insists on a mastery of at least two languages, it is rarely viewed as one’s ultimate calling (Rose, 116). If Nerval had not had a mastery of words, he would not have been able to successfully reproduce the works of Heine (Rose, 119). Reexamining the reasons for translating proves that poets would produce the most translations because it is something that interests them.

Throughout the years “many poets have translated other poets” (Jones, 211). Baudelaire loved the writing of Poe and translated many of his works (Jones, 211). Nerval developed a strong literary relationship with Heine, who respected Nerval as a translator, and sought his approval for his translations (Rose, 119). Nerval also started translating Goethe at the age of twenty (Rose, 116). Saint-John Perse translated TS Eliot and vice versa (Jones, 211). Paul Valery wrote, in The Art of Poetry, that he wanted to alter parts while translating Virgil. Robert Frost also translated works by Virgil (Jackson, 4). All of these writers have their own reasons, but when looking at their works it is undeniable that their experiences with translating have influenced their writing style.

Literary translations interpret intent and effect (Jackon, 1) while non-literary translations may be able to focus purely on the accuracy of the text. Literary translation is such a grave undertaking that it is usually a collaborative effort (Jackson, 2) with more than one translator, the author and the translator, or the translator and someone familiar with the original language and cultural background associated with the text. It is interesting to note that authors who translate their own works will usually take more liberties in translating (Rose, 3). This is because the most important element to translate is meaning and only the original author knows the exact intent. Even with all of the difficulties and inexactness of translation, critics are still harsh on translators. It has been said that Van Luan had a “genuine talent for dullness” in his translation of Moliére (Biguenet, 76). Many still cling to the idea held in the old cliché “traduttòre traditòre,” literally a translator is a traitor (Biguenet, 54). This somehow implies that the translator “sells out” the original text. Questions will always arise about what is lost, and possibly gained, in translation. Richard Jackson says, “translation is an art of analogy, the art of finding correspondences. An art of shadows and echoes… of producing” (2). Even these critics cannot deny the essentiality of translation. Without translation an entire history would die with every dying language, literature courses would be restricted to English stories, and almost no one would own a bible they could read. Translations are a way of connecting all cultures and time periods and should be viewed as such. A reader should not expect to gain an exact replica of words, but an understanding of a certain situation from a different perspective. The consensus is that translation stands as its own literary work that attempts to convey the same effect as a similar piece in a different language by using that piece as a guideline. It is necessary to remember that a translation is a rendition, not a reflection.

Works Cited

Ali, Salah. “Critique of Aspects of Translation of the Poetry of the Pre-Islamic Poets of
Al-Mutanabbi.” Turkish Studies Centre. 5 April 2003
<http://www.erudit.org/revue/meta/1990/v35/n4/001872ar.pdf>.

Biguenet, John, and Rainer Schulte, eds. The Craft of Translation. Chicago: The University
of Chicago Press, 1989.

Conley, C. H. Ph.D. First English Translators of the Classics. NY: Kennikat Press, 1967.
Jackson, Richard. “From Translation to Imitation.” 27 March 2003
<http://www.utc.edu/~engldept/pm/ontransl.htm>.

Jones, Michele. The Beginning Translator’s Workbook. Maryland: University Press of America,
1997.

Rose, Marilyn, ed. Translation Spectrum: Essays in Theory and Practice. NY: State University of
New York, 1981. Net Library. 8 April 2003
<http://emedia.netlibrary.com/reader/reader.asp?product_id=7999>.

<<< Return to Journal Contents