Dante Divina Commedia, Canto V, Translation comparison – Rogers/Norton

September 25, 2019 – Anita Hotchkiss

I looked at the same translations, and I noticed the same mismatch in lines between Dante’s original text and Rogers’ “compressed” version. I was also curious about why Rogers omitted words, seemingly at random. I can’t find any rhyme scheme that Rogers is following, but I do see now that there are 10 syllables in each verse. This doesn’t seem to me to be the greatest compensation to Dante’s rhyme scheme, and since it obligates Rogers to omit some words apparently, it seems to be more of a hinderance than anything.

I agree that Dante’s implication that da Rimini and her lover had transitioned from reading about adultery to acting it out was reflected in the original text better than the translations. I wonder if the change had anything to do with the translators’ possibly more Puritan values? I had read that Dante’s portrayal of lust featured in this chapter was different than how most artists at the time portrayed it. Dante’s contemporaries often portrayed lust in Hell with graphic depictions of sex and violence. Dante takes a different view, and his values seem to portray that lust is something that is difficult, if not impossible, to resist. I wonder if older translators attempted to comprehend and accurately translate Dante’s intentions, even if they did go against their own values? I know that translators of The Iliad in earlier centuries purposefully excluded any reference to Patroclus and Achilles’ relationship as anything but platonic, and taught students to ignore those aspects, despite Plato famously declaring their relationship as something other than platonic in his Symposium.

I didn’t know anything about “the Grand Tour,” so that was interesting to read about! I had taken the need for notes a different way: that is, Norton used, in instances, language that was archaic to even his contemporaries, and I wondered why he would feel the need to use archaic language with notes instead of using contemporary (or near-contemporary) language without the interference. However, I had completely forgotten about cultural references that may need explaining. I wonder how difficult it is to decide, for a translator, which cultural notes should be included, and which are excessive? Minos is a character I think many people have heard of, but maybe they don’t know that he was a judge in the Underworld in Greek myths. Is this a note that would enhance the reader’s experience, or take them out of the story?

 

 

Translation of Ungaretti’s “Veglia” & “Soldati”

October 4, 2019 – Greer M. Egan

I thought it was an interesting observation you made that the fallen soldier is described almost like an animal; I hadn’t made that observation. I wonder what effect that was meant to have on the reader?

I like that you translated “buttato vicino” as “crouched close” – I think it gives a much more claustrophobic image than “thrown beside.” It makes me think of the war trenches in movies.

For the second poem, I’ve been looking more at how the first line is translated; I had never considered to use the first person plural. I found that native Italians find the structure to be odd and vaguely ungrammatical. They described it as “impersonal”, and the most literal translation they decided on was “it.” However, they agreed that “we” or even “I” would fit better.

 

 

Eco’s Perception of Translation

October 8, 2019 – Giovanna Tsiolas

I think what you write about translations of Homer for the modern reader is interesting – whether the text should be translated so that the reader may feel like a Ancient Greek reader, or if the text should be modified as if Homer had written it today. This applies mostly to fiction, I believe. I think that in this, Eco presents us with a false dilemma and a false dichotomy. Why must these be the only two options? The translator may acknowledge their contemporary reader’s cultural knowledge and make those areas more accessible to the reader through footnotes, endnotes, or an expansion of the text; or the reader may modify the lexical and syntactic choices to give the text a different tone. As you write, translation is a solution, not the solution. The translation is a system that has individual parts composing it; each of those parts can be modified to modify elements higher up on the hierarchy of the system and create a new translation with different feelings evoked.

I wonder how these ideas would change for a piece of nonfiction written centuries ago? I believe there would be less freedom in what can be portrayed. However, how would something like an autobiography by, say, Homer, be treated? Compared to the Iliad, I think a nonfiction piece would make greater use of foot- and endnotes and try to avoid free translations.