Edward Fitzgerald’s translation of the Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam is widely considered to be a masterpiece, and superior to its source material.
ETA: Oops. njtt beat me to that one.
I’m not sure about this. I really do like Fitzgerald’s translation, and have read it many times, but I have other translations of the Rubaiyat. Unless they’re also papering over a lot of literary sins, the original (which was preserved for all that time presumably because people liked the poems) couldn’t be that bad.
Fitzgerald, who was not primarily a translator, and apparently an amateur at Farsi, did do something significant in bringing all those poems together, selecting the ones to use, and putting them in the order they are now in (not their original order) to suggest the passage of a day, from sunrise to sunset. IIRC, there was no “Rubaiyat” before Fitzgerald, just a collection of rubai, not all of them by Omar Khayyam. In fact, Fitzgerald’s translations vary considerably from edition to edition (there are four different ones)
So Fitzgerald’s real contribution wasn’t in translation, but in his selection and ordering, and in having the knack to publish his poem at a time when it would coincide with the mood of the times.
Tolstoy learned English so he could read Shakespeare in the original language. He was not impressed.
That’s pretty cool. I feel largely the same way about both Shakespeare and Tolstoy though. The Russian writers I think are the best(and thus obviously lend themeselves well to translation, since I know no Russian), are Dostoevsky and Chekov.
Since im overly defensive of all things Shakespeare I may as well post Orwell’s critique of Tolstoy’s essay:
Thank you. I read through that, but since I largely only share Tolstoy’s feelings towards Shakespeare and not his reasons, the critique failed to move me.
Hahahah. Well, I already knew that Tolstoy’s tastes don’t line up with mine, since he undoubtedly thought relatively highly of his own work.
On the contrary, his genius was in his avoidance of literal translation. The more literal translations of the Rubaiyat are much less compelling than Fitzgerald’s work. He took what frankly seem like some pretty ordinary verses if you look at literal translations, and turned them into an English-language masterwork.
No, many people have suggested “translating” Shakespeare into a more contemporary form of English. There was a recent thread on it here.
On the upside, it would make Shakespeare’s plays more accessible to a modern audience. But the downside is that there’s a strong argument that these plays would no longer be Shakespeare’s.
On the whole, I would tend to agree with the downside view. Much of the value of Shakespeare’s work is in the language he uses. In my opinion, his plots and characterizations are secondary to his words.
This raises the question of how much of an author’s work do we lose when we translate it into another language? And how much of a work is lost as the language it was written in diverges from the language people speak in general society? Arguably, nobody today appreciates Hamlet the way people did back in 1610.
You can see Fitzgerald’s translations side-by-side with more literal translations here. Fitzgerald’s work soars by comparison.
Example:
Literalist translation:
The signs of what’s to come has always been
Has always written both benevolent and mean
What is our lot was given by the hand unseen
With futility we try, exert, weep or keen.
Fitzgerald’s translation:
The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,
Moves on: nor all your Piety nor Wit
Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
Nor all your Tears wash out a Word of it.
He turned that into a line in the cocktail party section of his play, “The Thurber Carnival”: A character says, “He’s having his books translated into French. They lose something in the original.”
I never knew he felt that way, but I agree and actually entered the thread intending to mention 100 Years. Very cool.
My Spanish is quite good> I tried to read an unauthorized translation of the newest Harry Potter book while in Colombia. It was such a poor translation that on most pages there was written parenthetically (I didn;t understand the English here!) SO this isn’t what you are looking for for sure, just an aside.
The Princess Bride
The Downfall of the Lord of the Rings and the Return of the King
If those hadn’t been translated into English (and one of them heavily abridged), the world of literature would be a much poorer place.
Perhaps, but there are indications that Hamlet was viewed as an intellectual’s Play even in Shakespeares day. A contemporary wrote that Hamlet was enjoyed by the “wiser sort”. I believe a few scholars have looked at annotations of the First Folio. From that its partly possible to find what was important to near contemporary readers or what they found important or useful quotes to memorize in day to day speech. Curiously one line that was not annotated by a single near contemporary reader was “a horse, a horse, my kingdom for a horse”.
Pity the whole thing about The Princess Bride being a translation was just a story. I was completely taken in.
Yes, they would no longer be Shakespeare’s, but I fail to see the problem with that. It’s not as if Shakespeare’s version would disappear. It would be no different than having both more literal and more poetic translations.
I personally would say that I never had a chance at appreciating the language of Shakespeare until I actually understood what was going on. The beauty of Shakespeare’s langauge is not that it sounds pretty, but that it so eloquently gives out meaning.
And, well, there are a lot of people that aren’t interested in the beauty of language and just want to read the story. Right now, they are stuck with summaries that do an even worse job of capturing the original.
I just don’t get the resistance to translating the bard’s works. It wouldn’t be as good as the original. So what?