Robert Esposito
\n23 September 2019<\/p>\n
Dante\u2019s \u201cInferno\u201d Fifth Canto: A Comparison of Rogers (1782) and Norton (1902)<\/p>\n
The two translation works that I have chosen are the oldest and youngest, Rogers (1782) and Norton (1902) respectively. With over a century in between these two works, there are numerous differences in what the translators valued in their target text. The most obvious difference seen is the choice on Norton\u2019s part to render the text in prose instead of poetry, as Rogers has done. Neither translator chooses to maintain any rhyme scheme, and although Rogers has rendered the poem in verses, he chooses not to divide it into tercets. Stylistically, Norton\u2019s prose is much easier to read than the randomly divided block of verse that Rogers prints.<\/p>\n
Other differences within the text itself are also present: there are differences in word order, lexicon, and omissions from the source into the target text. These differences, described below, have stylistic and semantic consequences for the text.<\/p>\n
Dante\u2019s original text\u2019s word order was not challenging for his contemporary readers. The way Rogers and Norton have treated word order in their translations is distinct. Norton\u2019s take on word order is nothing striking; he maintains a naturalistic English word order throughout, mimicking Dante\u2019s intention in Italian. Rogers, on the other hand, makes a choice that seems to be influenced by Latin word order: the verb very often ends up in the sentence-final position, leading to sentences that are difficult to follow. I do not believe his word order choice to be influenced by the English spoken at the time, but the prestige given to Latin during his time.<\/p>\n
This example, when Dante approaches Minos, demonstrates the verb-final word order: \u201cMany before him always ready stand, \/ Who forward come, and in order tried\u201d (12-13). Although this passage is not particularly confusing, it is indeed not natural for English. An example that proves to be a bit more embedded is presented at line 70: \u201cSoon as the wind them to us wafted had, \/ I thus to them; \u2018Unhappy Souls, O now \/ With us discourse, if nothing you prevents.\u201d The Norton text provides an easier experience for the contemporary English reader, in terms of word order.<\/p>\n
The texts also diverge in terms of word choice. A peculiar case in the Norton text is provided when Vergil explains to Dante the vice of Semiramis and describes it as \u201cluxurious\u201d (31). Here, a footnote is necessary for the contemporaries of Norton, as well as us, to specify that the word should be taken \u201cin the obsolete, Shakespearean sense.\u201d It is difficult to imagine why Norton felt it necessary to reach into Shakespeare\u2019s 200-year-old lexicon to describe something that Rogers pins down as \u201cleachery\u201d (49). Norton\u2019s word choice makes his meaning more obscured and breaks the immersion that a reader feels while reading a text.<\/p>\n
Another example of lexical choice is provided on line 39. Dante writes, \u201cche la ragion sommettono al talento.\u201d Rogers translates \u201ctalento\u201d as \u201cPassion,\u201d while Norman chooses to write \u201cappetite.\u201d I believe that Rogers\u2019 translation is adequate, but Norman\u2019s \u201cappetite\u201d feels odd. It makes the situation feel more banal and simply a taste that one might have. In the context of the narrative, with characters such as Dido and Francesca da Rimini, it feels disconnected to express their throes of love as \u201cappetites.\u201d<\/p>\n
Despite Norman\u2019s word choice in that instance, I believe his text would be more accessible to a modern American reader. The structure as prose is more familiar and less disruptive than unrhyming, unpartitioned verse. The word order, I believe, poses the biggest problem to the modern reader in the Rogers addition, making the work a bit more arduous to get through than necessary.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"