The first version of Inferno 5 that I looked at was translated by John Dayman in 1865. The second version I looked at was translated by Charles Eliot Norton in 1902. The language used in both translations is vastly different when compared to one another. Dayman’s version uses words from old English such as “doth” and “woe”; while Norton’s version uses a more modern form of English. This difference can be attributed to the fact that Dayman wrote his translation in the 19th century, compared to Norton’s 20thcentury edition. For this reason, I believe for a contemporary American reader, Norton’s version would be more effective, as it may be a quicker read for some. I agree that Norton’s translation was much easier to understand; however, I felt as if Dayman translated words and phrases in a way that helped set the mood and give off a better idea of the emotions felt throughout the Canto.
Aside from the time difference between the two translations, both writers translated certain words differently as well. This can be seen at the beginning of Canto 5 in the first line, the Italian edition reads “Cosi discesi”, which when literally translated means “so descended”. In Norton’s translation, he uses the word ‘descended’ writing “Thus I descended”, while Dayman writes “So plunged I”. The words have a similar meaning; however, I feel as if they give off a different image. This specific line is describing when Dante enters the second ring of hell, a place which holds much more misery than the first ring. Due to this context, I believe ‘plunged’ fits better with what is going on, as it sounds as if Dante and Virgil were thrown into this chaotic ring of misery. To me ‘descended’ gives off an image of a calm entrance, which is the complete opposite of what I can imagine it felt like walking into this part of hell. They both translated the word somewhat accurately, yet I agree more with the way Dayman translated it, as it seems to fit more with the context of the scene.
Another example in which the two translations differed was seen when Francesca was describing how her tragic love story, between her and her brother in law, sent her to hell. In the Canto, she says to Dante, “Amor, ch’al cor gentil ratto s’apprende,”, which can roughly be translated to “Love, that can rapidly seize the gentle heart”. Norton translates this line as “Love, which quickly lays hold on gentle heart,” and Dayman translates it as “Love, which the gentle heart is quick to drink,”. Both translated “cor gentil” as “gentle heart”; however, that seems to be the only similarity. In different words, both translators are able to convey the idea that a gentle heart can easily be captured by love. Norton’s translation goes about it in a much more literal way, while Dayman is a bit more metaphorical. I prefer the way Dayman translates the line, as it leaves the line up to interpretation, while Norton’s version feels very to the point and doesn’t leave much room for emotion, in a scene where much emotion should be felt.
Although different words are used, both translations are able to describe the events of Canto 5 from Dante’s pity for the wailing souls in hell to Francesca’s tragic love story. Norton’s version of the text is a much more literal translation, while Daymon’s is an example of a free translation. Norton’s is a bit easier to get through due to its use of a more modernized English, while Dayman’s word choice fits better with the context of the Canto. The comparison of these two translations helps demonstrate how differently two people can interpret one piece of writing.