We speak about "my reading" or "his reading" of a text. Each reading of a text is also a translation of it into the reader's personal worldview. The writer too will see his subject differently on different days. We live in a commentariat! As Mary Oliver says, "The world offers itself to our imagination . . ."
The series that Princeton University Press does on ancient classics is terrific. There is one on Seneca titled How to Keep Your Cool. Beautiful hardbacks with quality paper and inexpensive. Seneca is currently $13.19. All volumes are translated and introduced by top-notch scholars. Wonderfully accessible language.
My first introduction to Animal Farm came when I was 15; the used copy had been heavily annotated to explain the symbolism, with specific passages marked "Metaphor", "Stalin", or "Socialism", etc. Apparently the previous owner felt the need to "translate" the work out if its allegorical presentation and into a more literal form!
The fact of languages not being 100% compatible has raised many interpretive issues for me throughout the years. For example, I've read most of Dostoevsky's novels in both the Constance Garnett and the Peavear / Volkhonsky translations, and greatly prefer the latter; they bring out so much more of Dostoevsky's humor, satirical sense, and breathless immediacy than Garnett does . . . but I really can't be sure those qualities are in the original Russian! Perhaps I should learn the language so I can read Dostoevsky's works exactly as he wrote them.
You’re right about the basic challenge: The transmission from one language to another can be more or less faithful. But some ideas and forms don’t always lend themselves for easy transmission into another language. It’s almost like they’re trapped in the world in which they arose and only make the leap if they’re radically altered. Along the same lines, a concept or usage might be lost to time. I always read the footnotes in my Bible; I’m amazed at how many passages are difficult to translate, have variant readings, or rely on older translations like the Septuagint for their renderings. Turns out language is slippery.
Hmm! I might have to read Katz's translation. It seems like he picks up on the humor that P/V also found and which Garnett, arguably, did not find in Dostoevsky's novel.
Related: Tolstoy knew English, and he was friends with Louise and Aylmer Maude. He personally approved of their translation of War and Peace, which seems to me a good reason for that book never needing translating again. There is considerable talk about how each generation ought to get the great works in a fresh translation for their unique cultural moment, but in the case of the Maude War and Peace such an approach seems difficult to justify.
We speak about "my reading" or "his reading" of a text. Each reading of a text is also a translation of it into the reader's personal worldview. The writer too will see his subject differently on different days. We live in a commentariat! As Mary Oliver says, "The world offers itself to our imagination . . ."
Yes, so true. There’s always (a) what’s said and (b) what we say it said.
The series that Princeton University Press does on ancient classics is terrific. There is one on Seneca titled How to Keep Your Cool. Beautiful hardbacks with quality paper and inexpensive. Seneca is currently $13.19. All volumes are translated and introduced by top-notch scholars. Wonderfully accessible language.
https://www.amazon.com/How-Keep-Your-Cool-Management/dp/0691181950
I love those books! The new one from Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, How to Flourish, looks great. I just picked it up. https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691238623/how-to-flourish#
My first introduction to Animal Farm came when I was 15; the used copy had been heavily annotated to explain the symbolism, with specific passages marked "Metaphor", "Stalin", or "Socialism", etc. Apparently the previous owner felt the need to "translate" the work out if its allegorical presentation and into a more literal form!
The fact of languages not being 100% compatible has raised many interpretive issues for me throughout the years. For example, I've read most of Dostoevsky's novels in both the Constance Garnett and the Peavear / Volkhonsky translations, and greatly prefer the latter; they bring out so much more of Dostoevsky's humor, satirical sense, and breathless immediacy than Garnett does . . . but I really can't be sure those qualities are in the original Russian! Perhaps I should learn the language so I can read Dostoevsky's works exactly as he wrote them.
You’re right about the basic challenge: The transmission from one language to another can be more or less faithful. But some ideas and forms don’t always lend themselves for easy transmission into another language. It’s almost like they’re trapped in the world in which they arose and only make the leap if they’re radically altered. Along the same lines, a concept or usage might be lost to time. I always read the footnotes in my Bible; I’m amazed at how many passages are difficult to translate, have variant readings, or rely on older translations like the Septuagint for their renderings. Turns out language is slippery.
There is a new translation of Bros K that just came out. Here’s a great article by the translator explaining the challenges. I bet you’ll dig it. https://lithub.com/the-unique-challenges-of-translating-the-brothers-karamazov-into-english/
Hmm! I might have to read Katz's translation. It seems like he picks up on the humor that P/V also found and which Garnett, arguably, did not find in Dostoevsky's novel.
Related: Tolstoy knew English, and he was friends with Louise and Aylmer Maude. He personally approved of their translation of War and Peace, which seems to me a good reason for that book never needing translating again. There is considerable talk about how each generation ought to get the great works in a fresh translation for their unique cultural moment, but in the case of the Maude War and Peace such an approach seems difficult to justify.