Mona Baker & Gabriela Saldanha. Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies (2nd edition)

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

Page194

Poetry

Thecentralquestionthatallstudiesofthetranslationofpoetryhaveasked,

implicitlyorexplicitly,iswhetherpoetrycanbetranslated(see

TRANSLATABILITY).Itmayseemobviousthatitcan,forpoetryhasalways

beenwidelytranslated,andsomepoets,suchasCatullusorRilke,havebeen

translatedmanytimes.Infact,translatedpoetryplayssuchalargepartinthe

literatureofmostculturesthatitistakenverymuchforgranted(Honig1985:1).

EnglishreadersofVirgilorOmarKhayyámorAlvarez’s(1992)anthology

ModernEuropeanPoetry,forexample,mightseethepoemsasforeign

withoutnecessarilyreadingthemastranslations.Thiscouldbetakenas

evidencethattheyhavebeensuccessfullytranslated,iftranslationisviewedasa

typeofwritingwhichavoidsdrawingattentiontoitself.

Theoppositeview–thatpoetrytranslationisdifficultorevenimpossible–

arisesfromthecoincidenceoftwoassumptions:(i)translatedpoetryshouldbe

poetryinitsownright(see,forexample,Coleridge1990:200);(ii)poetryis

difficult,cryptic,ambiguousandexhibitsaspecialrelationshipbetweenformand

meaning(FurnissandBath1996:13).Thesetwoassumptionstogetherhaveled

manywriters–suchasWeissbort(1989:x)andRaffel(1988:vii)–tosuggest

thatthetranslationofpoetry,morethanthatofanyothergenre,demandsboth

specialcriticalabilitiesandspecialwritingabilities.Onewayofnegotiatingthis

difficultyistotranslatepoetryintoprose,anapproachsometimesfavoured(see,

forexample,Arnold1954:316;Selver1966:13ff.;Weissbort1989:xii)for

writerssuchasSHAKESPEARE.Thismightbebecauseproseisseenas

easiertowrite,althoughScott(2000:163)arguesthatprosetranslationsof

poetryhavetheirown‘resourcefulness’andtheirownfreedoms.Prose

translationsare,however,theexception.

Anotherwayofdealingwiththesupposeddifficultyofpoetictranslationisto

moveawayfromtheoriginal,producingwhatLowellcalledImitations(1958)

orwhatPatersoncallsversions(2006:73ff.).Hamburger(1989:51)seessuch

deviationfromtheoriginalas‘anadmissionofdefeat’;yetmanytranslatorsof

poetryfeelitistheonlywaytoproducetranslatedtextswhichaim‘tobepoems

intheirownright’(Paterson2006:73).

Theskoposofpoetictranslation

Onewayofexpressingthefactthattranslatedpoetryaims,ingeneral,tobe

itselfpoetry,istosaythattheaimorskopos(Nord1997:27)ofitstranslationis

tocarryoverthesourcetextfunctionintothetargettext;itisthusan

instrumentaltranslation(seeFUNCTIONALISTAPPROACHES).However,

ifitistoavoidbeingwhatHamburgersawasmerelya‘springboard’forone’s

ownwork,thenitmustaspirealsotobedocumentary,togive‘someideaof

whattheoriginalisactuallylike’(Honig1985:177,179),andespeciallytoallow

itsreaderstoseethoseverydifficultieswhichmakeitpoetic.Thecommon

tendencytopublishtranslatedpoetrybilingually,especiallyinrecentyears,

pointstothisdocumentaryaspect.Especiallyforthebilingualreader,the

relationshipofthetranslatedpoemswiththesourcetextishighlightedbya

similarlayoutinbothlanguages.ThusrecentbookssuchastheWelshanthology

byMinhinnick(2003),Crucefix’sversionofRilke’sDuinoElegies(2006)or

Gardner’stranslationsofDutchpoetRemcoCampert(2007)suggestthat

successfultranslationofpoetrydoesnotdependuponthereader’sbeliefthat

thetranslatedpoemisanoriginal.YettranslatorslikeMinhinnickpointoutthat

they