Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 15

This article was downloaded by: [Griffith University]

On: 26 June 2014, At: 14:27


Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41
Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Translation Review
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/utrv20
In the Midst of an Infernal Crowd: Dante and the Original
Text(S)
James J. Donahue
Published online: 21 Aug 2012.
To cite this article: James J. Donahue (1999) In the Midst of an Infernal Crowd: Dante and the Original Text(S), Translation Review,
58:1, 31-44, DOI: 10.1080/07374836.1999.10523749
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07374836.1999.10523749
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the Content) contained in the
publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or
warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed
by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with
primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings,
demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly
in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is
expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
IN THE MIDST OF AN INFERNAL CROWD: DANTE AND THE
ORIGINAL TEXT(S)
BYJAMES 1. DONAHUE
A work dies by being completed.
Paul Valery, "Variations on the Eclogues"
D
ante' s Commedia is one of the most translated
works of all time, numbering about three dozen
complete translations, and this into English alone.
Among these translations, the most individually
translated book of the three is the Inferno, numbering
about 50, as well as more than 100 partial translations
(individual cantos, strings of cantos) (Toynbee 156-
304). For various reasons-poetic, philosophical,
theological, political-English-speaking translators
have found new reasons for bringing this poem back
(the first major wave starting in the 18th century, but
having been translated-or at least incorporated into
English literature-as far back as Chaucer).' Moving
in and out of academic favor, Dante's great epic has,
by our time, become a stable part of the English lit-
erary canon. For this, we thank a number of "stan-
dard" translations from the modem age in academic
circles, most notably by Dorothy Sayers (1949)/
John Ciardi (1954), Charles S. Singleton (1970), and
Allen Mandelbaum (1980). Recently, within the
space of two years, two very noteworthy-and very
different-translations of the Inferno have been pub-
lished, one collection by 20 contemporary poets
(1993) and a second by Robert Pinsky (1994), who
was also a contributor to the aforementioned collec-
tion.
C. K. Williams (who translated canto xix in the
collection) and Robert Pinsky (the current American
Poet Laureate), despite their working in the same era
and genre, have translated this work in two very dif-
ferent manners. This is a result of their differing
translation practices, specifically for the translating
of Dante, and intentions for their works. Although
neither poet is new to the art of translation, both used
different strategies than they are used to. This article
will compare these two translations, but in order to
do so, much must be accounted for. Therefore, a look
Translation Review
at issues in translation will be explored, especially
for the translation of poetry in general and Dante
specifically, as well as contemporary translation
practice. However, before such an enterprise may
begin, a defense of the translation of Dante must be
put forward. Furthermore, these two translations-
and maybe even the act of translation itself-have
serious implications for the question of authorship,
which can be used as a frame to discuss the role of
the translator in contemporary literature.
Defense for Translation
Before writing his great vernacular epic the
Commedia (1308-1321), Dante wrote a treatise dis-
cussing, among other issues, the act of translation. In
"Translation Destroys the Sweetness of the Original"
from Il convivio (1304-1307), Dante wrote against
the act of translating poetry. All translators of Dante
must work against the charge that "nothing harmo-
nized by the laws of the Muses [i.e., poetry] can be
changed from its own tongue to another without
destroying all its sweetness and harmony" (Hillard
48). There are two defenses against this charge:
Dante's own views on language and the inherent
untranslatability of the poem.
In De Vulgari Eloquentia (1302-1305), Dante
extols the beauties of the vernacular language over
the dead "grammatica," Latin, then the language of
academics. Latin, as a language of discourse and
especially of poetry, is rigid. Conversely, the vernac-
ular is "illustrious" (II, i) "because it was the lan-
guage originally used by the human race ... because
the whole world employs it '" and .,. because it is
natural to us, while the other is, in contrast, artificial"
(I, i). This is a special issue for poets, whose very life
is spent in developing this language. Although Dante
spends much time breaking down the differences in
the various local Italian vernaculars, in search of the
"noblest" language to express (Italian) poetic senti-
ment (II), the significance for the issue of translation
31
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
G
r
i
f
f
i
t
h

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
]

a
t

1
4
:
2
8

2
6

J
u
n
e

2
0
1
4

lies in his discussion of the importance of the com-
mon tongue for poetry.
Throughout Book II, Dante discusses the role of
the vernacular in poetry. Despite its commonness,
only poets of the highest caliber-those with the
most "knowledge of' and "affinity for" poetics (II,
ii)-are able to fully flush out the intricacies and
beauties of the vernacular. Furthermore, the vernacu-
lar should be used in poetry only for the most appro-
priate subjects ("well-being," "love," and "virtue")
and only in the "noblest" form, the canzone (II, iii).
The canzone, a lyrical ballad usually consisting of
any number of stanzas of equal lines and an envoy of
fewer lines at the end, was popularized by Petrarch
(1304-1374) and used by Italian poets singly, as well
as stringing them together for the epic.' (Although
Dante also writes of tragedy as the "highest" poetic
mode, he was later to use canzoni for his great comic
epic.)
Rather than explicate the nuances of Italian poet-
ics discussed in this work, what is important here is
the fact that Dante is discussing the poetic merits of
the vernacular language over the "grammatica."
Dante's discussion centers on the argument that only
the vernacular is suitable for the highest modes of
poetry. Thus, his great epic must have been written in
the vernacular for it to strive for the highest poetic
laurels. But what implications does this have for
trans lation?
Had Dante written the Commedia in Latin, the
educated across Europe could have universally read
it. However, his use of Italian was as much a linguis-
tic as a poetic statement. Although Dante was dealing
specifically with the Italian vernacular, his argument
could easily be extended to all European vernaculars
(or at least the Romance languages). As such, Dante
was implicitly arguing for the raising of vernacular
language to the status previously held by classical
language. By breaking free from a universal lan-
guage and promoting the use of the national lan-
guage, Dante's move begs for translation for two rea-
sons.
First, Dante's audience must be considered.
Although he was very consciously writing a nation-
ally based poem, taking most of his examples from
the contemporary political, religious, and social
32
issues of his time and place,' his implied reader is not
specifically an Italian but a Christian. Thus, his audi-
ence reaches beyond the borders of his own lan-
guage, and for these non-Italian-speaking Christians
to read his poem, it must be translated into their ver-
nacular (or Latin, which was still the language of the
Church, but this would negate the use of the vernac-
ular). Furthermore, although this is not explicit in the
poem itself, one should consider the implications of
Italian as a living language. Unlike Latin, Italian was
still evolving, and as such, the work would later
require translation, because the language would
inevitably change. Thus, a translation would still be
necessary even for an Italian-speaking audience of
later times.
Second, this work would require translation to
help establish what would become a multilingual
poetic community. Where poets from two different
language backgrounds would have had the same
background for poetry written in the "grammatica,"
no set background(s) would be in effect for reading
multiple types of vernacular poetry (except possibly
within that language community, as in Dante's set
standards in De Vulgari Eloquentia). For poets who
want to work in the vernacular but reach an audience
beyond their own language community-such as
audiences targeted by religion, social or economic
class, or profession-translation would be needed.
Dante's use of the vernacular becomes important
for contemporary translation. In the foreword to
Pinsky's recent translation, John Freccero states that
Dante was among the first in the Middle Ages to
write in the vernacular, writing this most serious of
poems not in Latin, as one might have expected, but
in the everyday speech of his city. Ultimately, this is
the justification for another contemporary transla-
tion, apart from its power and extraordinary accura-
cy. The poem is written in a language that we speak
now, no matter which language we speak (xvii).This
statement justifies a perpetual process of translation.
By writing in a then-contemporary language, Dante
implicitly allows for his work to be translated so that
it may always remain in a contemporary language
(and not risk falling into a "dead" status, such as in
the case of Latin). However, this statement makes a
more intriguing claim. In claiming that Dante wrote
Translation Review
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
G
r
i
f
f
i
t
h

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
]

a
t

1
4
:
2
8

2
6

J
u
n
e

2
0
1
4

"in a language that we speak now, no matter which
language we speak," Freccero is arguing for a uni-
versal "contemporaneity" of language. That is, it
would appear that Freccero is giving the language of
Dante's poetry a quality that transcends the temporal
actualities of Dante's medieval Florentine dialect of
Italian and is shared by contemporary English (as
well as any other language that is contemporary for
any given time and place). Although this assumption
is as old as Dante,' it has serious issues. First, what
defines a language as "contemporary" outside of its
being used at a specific time? Also, what is this defi-
nition based on: tone, diction, style, metrics, etc.? As
beautiful a statement of language as it may be,
Freccero has taken one too many liberties. (Had he
proceeded to explain himself, as difficult-t-or impos-
sible-i-as that may be, it might have shed some light
on the linguistic quality of "contemporaneity." As it
stands now, this charge sounds much more like a
reviewer searching for the most "poetic" way to jus-
tify yet another translation of the most widely trans-
lated poem into English.) The focus should rather be
put on Dante's use of "the everyday speech of his
city." This act justifies a contemporary translation, so
that Dante may always be read in "the language of
the city" of his reader (beyond medieval Florence).
In a recent article discussing translations of Dante
into English, Theodore J. Cachey, Jr., states that the
Commedia is "perhaps the most untranslatable of the
great literary classics" (144). This "untranslatability"
is due to two major factors: an uncommon and diffi-
cult rhyme scheme and a complex mix of medieval
European theology and medieval Italian politics.
The rhyme scheme of terza pat-
terned in ABA BCB CDC, etc.c-has never been pop-
ular outside Italy (where it was also a somewhat rare
form), and the very few English examples are often
noted.' Robert Pinsky appropriates terza rima to his
very well-reviewed translation (the nuances of which
will be discussed below). This is in keeping with
what Cachey calls "the modernist attachment to terza
rima," a movement set by the translations of Sayers
and Ciardi. However, as popular as it may have been
in the past 50 years, terza rima translation has its
staunch opponents.
Citing a review of the Sayers translation, Cachey
Translation Review
quotes Charles S. Singleton (who translated the
Commedia into prose): "To attempt this [terza rima]
is to be guilty of hybris, the wages of which is
padding at every tum" (152). Singleton believed that,
by adhering to the form overmuch, the translator was
letting slip the thematic focus of the work, letting the
"meaning" take second chair to finding the right
rhyme. As such, he believed that translating Dante
into prose was the best method, writing in a note to
his own translation that
while I was enduring the painful loss of the poetry
of the Comedy that any prose translation
inevitably brings about, I consoled myself with
the thought that there are, after all, a great many
readers who are able to make out the meaning, or
some of the meaning at least, in the original
Italian on the left-hand page. May this be the case
with them ever more frequently, until they are
able to 'live along the lines' over there, on the
left, in Dante's own words. The poem, the poetry,
is there in its richness and true greatness-s-there,
in the original, and almost nowhere else (372-3).
There is much here to be unpacked. In this statement,
Singleton is assuming a greater, and growing, reader-
ship in Italian (which mayor may not be true). Thus,
the need for translations is ever-decreasing, and the
translations in existence now are to be used as a
guide to get at the meaning. As such, a prose transla-
tion would be most useful by not sidetracking the
reader with poetry. More significant, however, is his
claim that the poetry is in the original only, or at least
most importantly. This is in keeping with Dante's
own feelings of translation expressed in Il convivio:
"For it would have been against their [the poems']
will, I say, speaking generally, to have explained their
meaning where their beauty could not go with it"
(Hillard 48). Because the terza rima poetics cannot
be completely recreated in English in the manner that
Dante wrote the poem,' the translator should, accord-
ing to Singleton, not even attempt it (or any other
poetic appropriation). Furthermore, Singleton's
translation is facing-page, with the original Italian
printed alongside the English translation. This prac-
tice has become very popular and has also been used
33
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
G
r
i
f
f
i
t
h

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
]

a
t

1
4
:
2
8

2
6

J
u
n
e

2
0
1
4

by Allen Mandelbaum and Robert Pinsky; it will be
further discussed below in detail along with Pinsky's
translation. However, despite this strong attack, there
has been much praise for terza rima translations,
especially Pinsky's." Freccero, as cited above, prais-
es Pinsky for his "admiral clarity and grace." Edward
Hirsch of The New Yorker celebrates Pinsky's cre-
ation of "a supple American equivalent for Dante's
vernacular music where many others have failed";
and Bernard Knox of The New York Review ofBooks
admires Pinsky's "serious attempt to solve the prob-
lem that has baffled so many translators: to find an
adequate English equivalent to Dante's poetic form,
the terza rima .... A brilliant success" (Pinsky back
cover, 1994). It is unlikely that this debate will ever
be settled, furthering the possibility for later transla-
tors to work at it.
The second major factor of the poem's "untrans-
latability" is its complex mix of medieval European
theology and medieval Italian politics. The
Commedia is filled with numerous references to the
people and places of Dante's time. As such, there is
much to relay to the reader, and the translator is often
at odds to convey the progression of Dante's narra-
tive and images in his form. Although prose transla-
tions are arguably best able to handle this task, disre-
garding the poetics entirely, Pinsky and Williams
have found two unique solutions, which will be dis-
cussed in the comparison between the two transla-
tions below.
How is the translator to convey the vast amount
of background knowledge needed to understand
Dante's complex society of contemporary sinners
and their crimes? Most translators use accompanying
endnotes. (The number and length of footnotes
would take up far too much room.) In the
Mandelbaum translation, all of the notes appear at
the end of each book. In the Sayers translation, the
notes follow each canto, and a summary precedes
each canto. The most comprehensive set of notes was
produced by Singleton, who found it necessary to
publish a separate volume of notes for each book.
However, the two translations that are being focused
on here are surprisingly scantily annotated. This
could be due to one of two factors. First, it could be
that, because others have already compiled quite
34
detailed sets of notes, the translators here did not
need to. (Both translators have referred to their con-
sultation of the Singleton translation in personal
interviews.) However, I believe that neither translator
was concerned with the background, focusing instead
on the production of a work of poetry, separate from
the previous tradition of translations. As such, the
notes-as background information to a medieval
Italian work of art-would be less relevant to con-
temporary works of art. This has important implica-
tions, which will be explored later in this essay. At
any rate, the complex amount of background knowl-
edge needed to fully comprehend Dante's epic is a
daunting stumbling block to the process of transla-
tion.
Given the reasons for difficulty in translating the
Commedia, Cachey asks, "How can the poem's ulti-
mate untranslatability be the condition of its infinite
translatability?" (160). The answer is given in
Wilmer's article, where he states that "No translator
renders more than a part of his author, and that will
be largely a part he identifies with" (4). Each transla-
tor will find a different aspect or nuance of the poem
to deal with, and with a poem as intricate as the
Commedia, there will be much to bring forth. (And
with the number of modem and contemporary trans-
lations, as well as the number previously produced, it
seems that there is no foreseeable end in sight.") Ifthe
poem is completely untranslatable as a whole (at
least the way Dante wrote it), then it is completely
translatable in its parts, and each translator will select
which part or parts he will specifically deal with.
There is a third, often under-discussed, defense
for translation. As Cachey points out, "Dante's poet-
ics were designed in imitation of God's writing"
(161). This sentiment is also expressed by Pinsky,
who states that "Dante in the Commedia made the
best translation that will ever be made of an original
in the mind of God, written in the language from
before the Tower of Babel" (e-mail interview,
emphasis mine-the importance of which will be
explained at the end of the article). The question of
how to translate the words of God is not the only one
brought up; one must also ask what gives a translator
the right to even try. In response to such questions (or
objections), Cachey cites Walter Benjamin in The
Translation Review
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
G
r
i
f
f
i
t
h

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
]

a
t

1
4
:
2
8

2
6

J
u
n
e

2
0
1
4

Task ofthe Translator: "Where a text is identical with
truth or dogma, where it is supposed to be the 'true
language,' in all its literalness and without the medi-
ation of meaning, this text is ultimately translatable.
In such case translations are called for because of the
plurality of languages" (161). On one hand, transla-
tion is justified on the religious basis that after the
destruction of the Tower of Babel, the language of
the word of God needed to be translated into many
languages 10; on the other hand, translation is justified
on the basis of language plurality, which adds anoth-
er dimension to the section on the use of vernacular
translations above.
Although the question of the translation of Dante,
in all its intricacies, has not been fully worked out,
the practice of translation is still very strong today. At
this point, it is time to explore the two translations at
issue here.
Two Contemporary Translations
If the defense for a translation of Dante "proves"
anything, it is that a number of possibilities are open
to the translator; and C. K. Williams and Robert
Pinsky best show this in their two recent translations
of canto xix of the Inferno. Both translators came to
the poem for different reasons, with different inten-
tions, and hoped for their respective translations to
achieve different goals, in terms of both translation
and poetics.
Williams came to translate Dante in a very
straightforward way: he was asked. Daniel Halpern,
in attempting to produce a translation of Dante
specifically for a contemporary audience, had asked
some of the most respected poets of our time to trans-
late a few cantos." His only two requirements: that
they be poets "whose own poetry I respected and
admired and whom I suspected had more than a pass-
ing interest in Dante." No previous knowledge of
either translation theory or Italian was required:
"Some of them were familiar with Italian; others
were proven translators; but, finally, all were select-
edfor the quality oftheir own poetry in English" (vii,
emphasis mine). Thus, both the editors and transla-
tors were well aware that the primary reason for their
being asked was their own original material; as such,
they were conscious of working to produce a volume
Translation Review
of poetry as much original as it was "translated." This
was certainly very much the case with Williams' con-
tribution.
In general, Williams believes that it is essential to
translate poetry as poetry "because [ think there's a
specific kind of consciousness that happens when
you are reading verse, especially if you are an edu-
cated reader of verse, which doesn't when you are
reading prose." Further, "the reason to do a transla-
tion [is] to make it accessible for contemporary read-
ers" (interview 4). Thus, Williams' theories about
translation fit in very well with the project he was
asked to do for the Ecco Press Dante. However, this
was not his first attempt at translating poetry.
An award-winning poet, Williams has also pro-
duced a few works of translation or, as he calls them,
"versions." When asked to define the difference
between translations and "versions," in respect to his
"versions" from Issa (The Lark. The Thrush. The
Starling. Poems from Issa, 1983), he replied that "I
decided to decode them; and I took several, two or
three, haiku and I put them all together.... I made
them into little contemporary poems rather than imi-
tations of a world that doesn't really exist [for
Westerners]" (interview 2). This early translation
project is important for his translation of Dante for
two reasons: first, Williams does not speak a word of
Japanese, having translated from a modem collection
(which he could not recall) translated into English.
Second, he was consciously producing a volume of
contemporary poems, not haiku to be read by a con-
temporary audience." We have the same issues in his
translation of Dante.
In translating Dante, Williams did not consult the
original text but rather the Singleton prose translation
and a French poetic translation (which he could not
recall). Although he needed the Singleton (partly
because it was a prose translation) in order to under-
stand the canto, he consulted a French volume
because "When I translate I like to find something in
another language, usually French because that's a
language I read with some fluency" (interview I).
This brings up a major issue. Even though we know
that it is important for Williams to translate poetry as
poetry, he did not have access to the original poetry."
Rather, he needed to resort to another translation in
35
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
G
r
i
f
f
i
t
h

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
]

a
t

1
4
:
2
8

2
6

J
u
n
e

2
0
1
4

order to have access to it, even though he already
understood the "sense" through the prose (which, as
explained above, is often best suited for such a pur-
pose). So why go to a French text? Wouldn't this just
cloud the issue? In any case, Williams was very much
aware of his "lack"; ifhe could not read the poetry in
the original, how could he translate that same poetry
into his own language? Conveniently, this was not an
issue, because Williams (like the others) was select-
ed for his ability to create poetry in English, not re-
create the poetics of Dante.
As with his "versions" from Issa, Williams was
here appropriating his material to create an original
work of poetry in English. Even though he stays as
close as he can to the "sense" of the original-"It was
hard to get close to anything but a few images in it"
(interview 1)-his intentions for the poetry had very
little of Dante's original in mind. In his brief note to
his translation, he states that
... I wanted to keep a strong stanza, with no
run-ons except where they occur in the original,
and that I wanted each stanza to have at least one
full rhyme (though I didn't think I could keep the
linkings of the terza rima without too much dis-
tortion), I decided I needed a supple line to make
the stanzas, and so I arrived at what I have here,
which, halfway through, I realized, not to my sur-
prise, were the line and stanza Elizabeth Bishop
used in "The Moose," one of the contemporary
poems I most admire. (184)
In terms of metrics, in contrast to Dante's use of 45
stanzas of long-lined tercets, Williams uses 45 stan-
zas of short-Iine" (averaging less than 10 syllables on
average) sextets. In trying to keep as close to the
original as possible, Williams did his best to "match"
his stanzas to Dante's in the development of the stan-
za. However, whereas his stanzaic pattern is as close
as he could get it, the rhyme is as far from Dante as
he could make it. The "at least one full rhyme" in
each stanza is not regularly assigned, nor is there
always just one. (The first stanza, for instance, has
two full rhymes.) Thus, Williams' "supple line" gets
about as far away from Dante (poetically) as any
translator of Dante into English poetry has come.
36
Williams feels that this difference is justified because
as "a translation it gave me... sanction to do some-
thing very different, and even the necessity to do
something very different" (interview 2). Williams
realizes that, by virtue of his act of translation-of
his work not being the original-he will have to
reappropriate the canto to his sense of language and
poetics.
However, Williams' complete reappropriation of
Dante's verse is also justifiable in that Williams was
actively writing a contemporary, creative work. This
is justified by his falling into a form previously used
by Elizabeth Bishop, another celebrated contempo-
rary poet. Although this canto became "as much an
homage to Bishop as to Dante," Williams did not
consciously choose this form. He had been studying
"The Moose" for some time, but he does not believe
"that you can patent forms, I don't think you want to
patent forms; forms are '" discoveries that people
make, and forms are to be shared" (interview 3).
Williams' canto is thus justified as a piece of original,
contemporary poetry because, in his own way, he
happened upon a form that had been previously
brought out to the community of contemporary poets
by another such poet.
When asked what he most wanted to bring to the
contemporary reader with his translation of the canto,
Williams replied, "I wanted ... to bring out the vivid-
ness of the imagery, and the ease of the line ... the
fluidity of the language" (interview 4). Notice that
Williams is not as interested as bringing to the read-
er a complete sense of what Dante was trying to
teach; nor was he as interested in keeping to the nar-
rative flow of the Inferno as a whole. IS Whereas the
basic "raw material" came from Dante, the poetics-
the poetry-comes from Williams. This is not so
much the case with Robert Pinsky.
In his later translation of the Inferno-a work
undertaken while asked to translate two cantos for
the same work as Williams-Pinsky is more con-
cerned with translating "Dante's poem." Although he
shares Williams' concern for the poetics of the work,
he resolves the issue of translating poetry in another
manner. Unlike Williams, who gets as far away from
Dante's rhyme as he can, Pinsky translates Dante into
terza rima. However, because English does not
Translation Review
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
G
r
i
f
f
i
t
h

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
]

a
t

1
4
:
2
8

2
6

J
u
n
e

2
0
1
4

rhyme as easily as Italian does, Pinsky has had to
make a few adjustments.
As shown earlier, critics are generally tom on the
issue of translating the Commedia into terza rima.
Putting this issue aside (because I am not in a posi-
tion to resolve it), Pinsky's terza rima translation
takes a few liberties with rhyme in order to fit into
the rhyme scheme, which, as mentioned earlier, is
very difficult for English. In his "Translator's Note,"
Pinsky explains that he needed "a more flexible def-
inition of rhyme, or of the kind and degree of like
sound that constitute rhyme" (xix). However, he was
discriminating as to what constitutes "like sound."
All same consonants rhyme, regardless of the pre-
ceding vowel"; for example, in canto xix we find
"unsaid/stood/side" (11. 35, 37, 39). However, if the
final consonant is part of a consonant cluster, the
whole cluster is what rhymes (again, with no consid-
eration to the preceding vowels); for example, in
canto xix we find "burst/coursed/worst" (II. 23, 25,
27). Here we have an example of what Williams
referred to as Pinsky's "rather free notions of rhyme"
(interview I). In order for "coursed" to rhyme with
"burst" and "worst," the final "<ed" must be pro-
nounced as a "t," not uncommon in contemporary
American English. Although he admits that this sys-
tem of rhyme is a matter of "personal taste" (what
Pinsky also calls "harmony"), he sends the reader
back to Yeats, "a master of consonantal rhyming," for
justification (xix). Despite the possibility of criticism
this freedom with terza rima may receive in general
(and I am here thinking of what Charles Singleton
would have to say about such liberties), Pinsky was
not entirely successful in his approximation of terza
rima to English poetics.
By his own admission, Pinsky is guilty of "occa-
sional compromises and slidings" in his rhyme (xx). 17
Although this is normally not something to fault a
poet for, especially given the difficulty of the rhyme,
a successful approximation was important to
Pinsky's intentions. Although he claims that his
rhyme was not a choice but rather "an unconscious
intuition," he also places an importance on terza rima
as serving "the speed of Dante's narrative" (e-mail
interview 2). As such, in order for Pinsky to create
"the only verse translation in English to translate
Translation Review
D[ante]'s sentences," he would have to successfully
re-create the verse (e-mail interview 2). However,
because Pinsky is working on a specifically English
version, writing "English pentameter lines of terza
rima," this may not be a major fault (e-mail interview
2). At any rate, the importance here is on the fact that
Pinsky is intentionally working to create an English
version of Dante's poem. In fact, one may go so far
as to say that he is trying to create an English
Commedia.
As opposed to C. K. Williams, who consciously
wrote a contemporary English poem in terms of poet-
ics, Pinsky was more concerned with re-writing
Dante's "sentences." Taking the two major meanings
of this word (etymologically), Pinsky is writing a
translation of both Dante's lines and his "meanings."
Thus, Pinsky's translation of the Commedia could be
read as the work that Dante would have written, had
he wrote in English. This is furthered by the Italian
text that Pinsky includes on the facing page. Earlier
translators of Dante, such as Singleton," have used
facing-page translations. As discussed above,
Singleton intended for his prose translation to convey
the sense of the Commedia, leaving the "poetry"
where it rightfully belonged, in the original.
However, Pinsky translates the "poetry" as well as
the sense. Whereas Singleton included the original
Italian for those who could understand it, even ifjust
a little, why would Pinsky include it if he is giving
the "poetry" to the reader? The reader who can
understand the Italian would not need a translation,
and the reader who needs a translation would not
comprehend the Italian. I argue that Pinsky is invit-
ing the reader to compare his version to the origi-
nal-to read his as the original. This is not a new
concept. Romantic-age translators of Dante, con-
cerned with "producing a translation that will have an
aesthetic effect similar to that the model has in the
source language," considered a translation to be "a
kind of magic mirror, an enchanted looking glass,
against which the pages of a poem in one language
are held and, somehow, imaged forth in the other"
(DeSua 28). A facing-page translation is the most
recent development of such a thought, allowing
(forcing?) the reader into reading the translation as a
mirror image of the original.
37
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
G
r
i
f
f
i
t
h

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
]

a
t

1
4
:
2
8

2
6

J
u
n
e

2
0
1
4

This issue is further complicated by Pinsky's
view of Dante's translation "of an original in the
mind of God, written in the language from before the
Tower of Babel" (e-mail interview 3). Pinsky, view-
ing Dante's "translation" of what God would have
written had he been forced to write in a post-Babel
language (specifically Italian), thus views his own as
a continuation of that tradition. Although Pinsky does
claim that "no one will ever equal or even approach
Dante's translation of that original," he also states
that "English translations can hope, if they are works
of art, to add some information about the original that
is not in the Italian" (e-mail interview 3). That is,
even if Dante's work is somehow "better" than any
translation of it could be, the translation of it into
other languages brings the work as a whole closer to
the pre-Babel language used by God in imparting it
to Dante. This clearly brings us back to Walter
Benjamin and his views on translation in a religious
context (see discussion above).
In terms of "originality," Pinsky is closer to
Dante's original text in that he had access to it in
Italian and translated it from the original (with refer-
ence, however, to Singleton, Sinclair, Longfellow,
Mandelbaum, and Musa, "To get as close as possi-
ble" [e-mail interview 3]). This strengthens the chain
of relation from God to Dante and now to Pinsky;
whereas Dante had access to the language of God, in
terms of "the mind of God," Pinsky had access to the
language of Dante, and by claiming to translate the
sense as well, he is also claiming an access to "the
mind of Dante.'?" This would seem to work against
an argument for Pinsky's translation as an "original."
However, just as authorship of the Commedia is
assigned to Dante, Pinsky assigns authorship to him-
self, stating that "I was trying to create a work of art"
(e-mail interview 4).20 This brings up many other
issues for the idea of originality in translation, which
will be dealt with below.
Authorship in Translation
In his recent work on the place of the translator in
Anglo-American literature, Lawrence Venuti states
that a "translated text ... is judged acceptable by
most publishers, reviewers, and readers when it reads
fluently, when the absence of any linguistic or stylis-
38
tic peculiarities makes it seem transparent ... the
appearance, in other words, that the translation is not
in fact a translation but the 'original ,,, (I). That is, a
translation is judged at its best (in contemporary lit-
erary terms) when there is no trace of the translator in
the work. In our two examples, this is much more so
the case with Pinsky's translation than with
Williams', in that the former works his to read in
such a manner, whereas the latter is working to cre-
ate a more "original" (in contemporary creative
terms) work of poetry." However, this practice,
according to Venuti, is inherently ethnocentrically
violent, stating that "in the translating process, for-
eign languages, texts, and cultures will always under-
go some degree and form of reduction, exclusion,
inscription" (310). In translating a work, the transla-
tor will, by definition, subject the piece to the target
language, either by removing any culturally specific
linguistic techniques and replacing them with those
of the target language, or by "foreignizing" the trans-
lation to the point where it is not understandable in
the target language (which "foreignizing" is done not
by the standards of the original but in relation to the
standards of the target language). As a response to
this process, Venuti calls for "limiting discursive
experiments to perceptible deviations that may risk
but stop short of the parodic or the incomprehensible,
that release the derive of cultural discourses in the
target language" (311).
But how is one to understand this reform in terms
of the two contemporary translations of Dante we
have been investigating? On the one hand is
Williams' translation, which could be charged with
removing all culturally based linguistic practices of
the original in subjecting it to a contemporary audi-
ence (translating canto xix into a contemporary
American poem), thus forcing the original text to
submit to the literary forms of the target language.
On the other hand we have Pinsky's translation,
which could be charged with risking the parodic in
attempting to recreate a poetic strategy that does not
commonly exist in English (with a few exceptions,
all of which were forced schemes, most likely deriv-
ing if not originating from Dante)." As such, both
translators could be charged with a degree of inten-
tional "foreignizing:" Williams, on the one hand, for-
Translation Review
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
G
r
i
f
f
i
t
h

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
]

a
t

1
4
:
2
8

2
6

J
u
n
e

2
0
1
4

eignizing the text from the original; Pinsky, on the
other, foreignizing the text from the expectations of
its target-language audience. Clearly, the role of the
translator involves a degree of making the text dif-
ferent, either from itself or from its intended audi-
ence.
In terms of authorship, Venuti calls for the trans-
lator to "revise the individualistic concept of author-
ship that has banished translation to the fringes of
Anglo-American culture." Although he argues that
translators should develop "innovative translation
practices in which their work becomes visible to
readers" (as individual, creative works), he continues
to posit translators into a secondary role in calling on
them to present "sophisticated rationales for these
practices" (311). That is, Venuti is recognizing trans-
lation as an individual act separate from the actual
writing of the text; the text is already complete, and
the translator is the presenter of that work to another
language-based culture. However, this does not justi-
fy the existence of two very different translations of
the same work appearing at the same time. To justify
the possibility of radical difference in two such
works, deriving from the same "original," the very
concepts of "authorship" and "originality" must be
called into question.
In discussing the translator in terms of author-
ship, we are working in the middle ground of a bina-
ry, both sides of which are clearly limiting to the role
of the translator. On the one hand, we have the trans-
lator as sole author, which cannot work, given that no
matter how many translations of a certain work
appear, there will always be a similar text (although
in varying degrees) behind them all. On the other
hand, there is the "original author" as sole author,
which clearly cannot work, given that even though
the one "original text" is common to them all, the
possibility of difference between the two translations
is too great to subject all translations (canonical or
variant) to the authority of the "original author." It is
in this middle ground that we must negotiate to find
a suitable place to situate the translator. This middle
ground becomes even more complex when it
involves translators whose primary literary activities
are in what I have been calling "original texts." The
question at issue is: at what level of the production is
Translation Review
the contemporary poet/translator an "author" of the
text he is working with?
In an e-mail interview, Pinsky stated that "trans-
lation is an unusually intense form of reading" (6). As
such, the translator is first and foremost a reader of
the text. The first level of importance that a translator
must consider is his role as reader-and interpreter-
of the text, for his reading will certainly influence his
translating. However, positing the importance of the
translator in the role of the reader is dangerous. In his
influential essay "The Death of the Author," Roland
Barthes argues for "the birth of the reader," which
must come "at the cost of the death of the author"
(148). Thus, the translator-as-reader can only be an
effective reader/interpreter/translator of the work if,
by reading the text, he participates in the "death" of
the "original author." To follow this through, the
translator then becomes the new "author" of the
work, or at least until someone new comes to sup-
plant him in terms of reading his work." In fact, this
would allow for multiple "authors" to emerge in dif-
ferent traditions (language-based, culture-based, or
in different academic circles), depending on which
translations each new translator works to supplant.
Where at first this method would seem to allow the
translator to become the "author" of the work, one
sees how this method does not allow for any sole
"author" to emerge. Both the original author and the
translator (who was first a reader, but then an inter-
preter, then author, of the text) "die" so that the read-
er may assume primacy in the interpretation of the
work. As such, the translator cannot become the sole
author of the work because, in the very act that would
remove the original author from the work, the trans-
lator himself is removed.
With all this in mind, discussing the "death of the
author" is an inherently misguided way to consider
the role of the translator. Although it may have value
in discussing nontranslated works, translated works
make this system complicated by their very virtue of
admitting to an "original author" as well as falling
prey to the acts of a reader/translator/
interpreter/author, who in some ways re-authorizes
the text for a new audience. Therefore, we must
accept some notion of "author" that would validate
both the similarities between the translation and the
39
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
G
r
i
f
f
i
t
h

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
]

a
t

1
4
:
2
8

2
6

J
u
n
e

2
0
1
4

"original" as well as the differences between the indi-
vidual translations. But, one may ask (as many have
done in the past), what is an "author?"
Rather than deal with an "author" of a text, who
"must assume the role of the dead man in the game of
writing" (143), Michel Foucault deals with an
"author-function" (148). This is because it is too lim-
iting in the interpretation of a text "to repeat the
empty affirmation that the author has disappeared ....
Instead, we must locate the space left empty by the
author's disappearance" (145). In terms of transla-
tion, the "original author" must, as a matter of neces-
sity, disappear. However, the position previously
filled by the "original author" is then filled by the
translator, who reads, interprets, and then re-authors
the text for his target audience. It is not enough to
allow only the "original author" to fill the position of
the "author-function," because a "name as an indi-
vidual trademark is not enough when one works
within a textual tradition" (150). In terms of transla-
tion, the very act of translation places a text into a tra-
dition, which by definition calls for a reevaluation of
the "individual trademark" of the work. Because "the
author provides the basis for explaining not only the
presence of certain events in a work, but also their
transformations, distortions, and diverse modifica-
tions" (151), the translator as transformer, distorter,
and modifier must be posited in the "author-func-
tion," at least at some point in the process." In writ-
ing that the "author-function" "does not refer purely
and simply to a real individual, since it can give rise
simultaneously to several selves, to several sub-
jects-positions that can be occupied by different
classes of individuals" (153), Foucault seems to be
opening the discussion of "authorship" to include
multiple "authors," all at different stages of literary
production.
In his answer to Foucault's question, Jack
Stillinger begins his discussion with reference to
Webster s Third New International Dictionary
(1961), which defines an author as (in part) "one hav-
ing the right to make author's alterations" (215, note
2). In doing so, Stillinger states that only authors
have the right to make alterations to the text. But who
is the "author?" Clearly the "original author" is not
the only "author" occupying the "author-function,"
40
because the work continues to take shape long after
he has finished with it. However, neither is the trans-
lator the only "author," because he can only work
within the limits (however loosely or rigidly defined)
of the "original text." In his discussion, Stillinger
separates '''nonauthorial' authorizing" from "the
common types of textual corruption-situations
where someone other than the nominal author [whom
I have been calling the "original author"] is essen-
tially and inextricably part of the authorship" (20). In
his discussion of the alterations made to Keats'
Sonnet to Sleep by the many editors and printers,
Stillinger seems to be arguing for a notion of"author-
ship" that can only be authorized by the "original
author" himself. Although this allows for the possi-
bility of multiple "authors" for any text, it limits the
"authoring" ("authorizing") of the text to the time
and place of the "original author." As such, the pro-
duction of the text dies with the producer. This defi-
nition may work for limiting the possibility of edito-
rial corruption, but it fails to take into consideration
the translator of a text.
In arguing for a criticism that considers the mul-
tiple "authors" of a work, Stillinger considers the
work only in terms of original production and edit-
ing, recognizing that the "original author" is not the
sole author of the work, but rather the primary author,
who in tum is the sole judge of any changes that are
to be made, even if those changes come from some-
one other than himself. So what are we to do with
textual "corruptions" that arise from the act of trans-
lation, especially those that occur beyond the scope
(in terms of time, geography, or language) of the
"primary author?" Although this is beginning to read
much more like an argument for solitary authorship,
this is the closest we have come so far to a theory of
authorship that will even consider the translator.
Where Stillinger claims that "better theories may tum
out to be those that cover not only more facts but
more authors" (24), we must now insist on a theory
that posits the translator as one of those authors, or
rather, as filling one of the multiple "author-func-
tions." This is especially the case for those of us who
rely on translations (which would, to a degree,
involve most if not all of academia); without access
to the "original text," we are forced to work with the
Translation Review
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
G
r
i
f
f
i
t
h

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
]

a
t

1
4
:
2
8

2
6

J
u
n
e

2
0
1
4

re-authorized productions. As such, it is time to rec-
ognize the role of the translator as "author" in the
tradition of literary production.
To return to the above-stated binary, we cannot
allow for a theory of authorship that posits either the
"original author" or the translator as the "solitary
genius" (to borrow from Stillinger's title). According
to T. S. Eliot, "No poet, no artist of any art, has his
complete meaning alone" (431). Where the poet must
look back to the tradition for the roots of his talent,
this is especially the case for the translator, who,
however creative his work may be, must keep one
eye looking back to the original; this is even more the
case with a translator of Dante, who must always
remain conscious of the tradition of translation of the
work. However, this is also the case for the author,
who must realize that the tradition of textual produc-
tion only begins with the "original text." Translation
sets up a tradition that calls into question any notion
of solitary authorship. This is especially the case with
translators such as C.K. Williams and Robert Pinsky,
who use the act of translation as a means of author-
ship, creating contemporary works of poetry within a
tradition of literary production. In terms of the tradi-
tion that translation sets up for a work, "complete
meaning" cannot equally rest with the original, for
such a consideration disregards the tradition-espe-
cially the tradition of a much-translated work-of
reading, interpreting, and re-authorizing that transla-
tion calls into being. What is needed is a theory of
authorship that gives the translator a position in the
"author-function" of a work, equal to the "author-
function" filled by the "original author." Such a def-
inition of authorship is the only way to justify the two
very different contemporary translations of the same
work, Dante's canto xix of the Inferno. Just as Dante
is given creative authorship of his version of canto
xix, so must Williams, because both were conscious-
ly writing creative pieces for their specific audiences.
Although Pinsky will also fall into this definition of
authorship (even if to a lesser degree), we must grant
him authorship on the same basis that he grants it to
Dante; if Dante's original exists only as a translation
of "the mind of God," then Pinsky's must exist as a
translation of "the mind of Dante." As such, Dante
becomes only the (temporally) first "author" to fill
Translation Review
the "author-function." After that, once the work
enters into a tradition of translation, each translator,
or (temporally) secondary "author," fills the "author-
function." Further, we must rethink our notions of an
"original" text. If we are still going to consider each
of these three texts (by Dante, Williams, and Pinsky)
"canto xix.?" then we are forced to throw out our pre-
vious notion of an "original" text independent of the
multiple "authorship." The notions of "original text"
and "secondary texts" are then obsolete, and the
"text" then exists in a state of perpetual "originality,"
allowing for further translators to occupy the role of
"author function" in making textual changes in terms
of creative authorship. All texts must be considered
"works in progress," because of the possibility for
each (temporally) primary text to enter into a tradi-
tion of translation.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Alighieri, Dante. The Divine Comedy. "Hell."
Translated with an Introduction by Dorothy L.
Sayers. New York: Penguin Books, 1949.
---. The Divine Comedy. "Inferno." Translated, with a
Commentary, by Charles S. Singleton. Bilingual
Edition. Princeton: Princeton University Press,
1970.
---. The Divine Comedy of Dante Alighieri.
"Inferno." A Verse Translation by Allen
Mandelbaum. Bilingual Edition. New York:
Bantam Books, 1980.
---. The Inferno of Dante: a new verse translation.
Translated by Robert Pinsky. Bilingual Edition.
With Notes by Nicole Pinsky and Foreword by
John Freccero. New York: The Noonday Press,
1994.
---. De Vulgari Eloquentia. Translated by Steven
Botterill. Bilingual Edition. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1996.
---. La Vita Nuova. Translated with an Introduction
and Notes by Barbara Reynolds. New York:
Penguin Books, 1969.
Barthes, Roland. "The Death of the Author."
Image/Music/Text. Essays selected and translated
by Stephen Heath. New York: Hull and Wang,
1977.
41
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
G
r
i
f
f
i
t
h

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
]

a
t

1
4
:
2
8

2
6

J
u
n
e

2
0
1
4

Cachey, Theodore J. Jr. "Between Hermeneutics and
Poetics: Modern American Translation of the
Commedia" Annali d'Italianistica. Chapel Hill:
University of North Carolina. 8. (1990): 144-165.
DeSua, William J. Dante Into English. Chapel Hill:
The University of North Carolina Press, 1964.
Eliot, T. S. "Tradition and the Individual Talent."
Criticism and Major Statements. 3rd ed. Eds.
Charles Kaplan and William Anderson. New
York: St. Martin's Press, 1991.
Foucault, Michel. "What Is an Author?" Textual
Strategies: Perspectives in Post-Structuralist
Criticism. Edited and with an Introduction by
Josue V. Harari. Ithaca: Cornell University Press,
1979.
Halpern, Daniel, ed. Dante's Inferno: Translations by
20 Contemporary Poets. Introduced by James
Merrill with an afterword by Giuseppe Mazzotta.
Hopewell: The Ecco Press, 1993.
Hillard, Katherine, trans. Translation Destroys the
Sweetness of the Original. Western Translation
Theory: From Herodotus to Nietzsche. Ed.
Douglas Robinson. Manchester: St. Jerome
Press, 1997.47-48.
Metzger, Bruce M. and Roland E. Murphy, eds. The
New Oxford Annotated Bible with the
Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical Books. New
Revised Standard Edition. New York: Oxford
University Press, 1991.
Pinsky, Robert. E-Mail Interview. March 21, 1998.
Boston, Mass.
Stillinger, Jack. Multiple Authorship and the Myth of
Solitary Genius. New York: Oxford University
Press, 1991.
Tasso, Torquato. Jerusalem Delivered: an English
Prose Version. Translated and Edited by Ralph
Nash. Detroit: Wayne State University Press,
1987.
Toynbee, Paget. Dante Studies. Oxford: Clarendon
Press, 1921.
Venuti, Lawrence. The Translator s Invisibility: A
History ofTranslation. London: Routledge, 1995.
Wallace, David. "Dante in English." Jacoff, Rachel,
ed. The Cambridge Companion to Dante.
Chapter 15. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1993.
42
Williams, C. K. Personal Interview. March 11, 1998.
Boston, Mass.
Wilmer, Clive. "Dante made plain: sacrifices and
successes in two centuries of translating 'the
acerb Florentine'." The Times Literary
Supplement. September 6, 1996: 3-4.
NOTES
'Chaucer used selections from Dante for his
Canterbury Tales, most notably in The Monk s
Tale iInfemo, canto xxxii-xxxiii-Ugolino), as
well as working passages from the discussion of
nobility found in II Convivio IV for The Wife of
Bath:" Tale (Wallace, 237-240).
"Ms. Sayers died before completing her translation,
which was finished by Barbara Reynolds (1962),
who also translated Dante's La Vita Nuova
(1969).
'Although Dante's Commedia is the most popular
example, this form was also used by Torquato
Tasso (1544-1590) for his Gerusalemme Liberata
(1581).
"However, one must also consider the many exam-
ples taken from France, England, and beyond,
such as Alard de Valery, constable of Champagne
(canto xxviii); Prince Henry, son of Richard
Duke of Cornwall and nephew to Henry III of
England (canto xii); and Ali Ibn Abu Taleb,
nephew and successor to Mahomet (canto xxviii).
5De Vulgari Eloquentia I, " ... because the whole
world employs it. .. " (see p. 2).
"The most popular examples are from Chaucer, for a
portion of A Complaint to His Lady, Sir Thomas
Wyatt's Second Satire, Lord Byron's The
Prophecy ofDante and Ode to the West Wind, and
Browning's The Statue, as well as a number of
translations of the Commedia, most notably those
by Dorothy Sayers and Robert Pinsky. The
unpopularity is due to its difficulty-English is
not as inflected as Italian.
"Pinsky was forced to alter the line scheme of the
poem in order to stay within the limits of terza
rima: "This translation is not line-for-line, nor
tercet-for-tercet. In order to represent Dante's
succinct, compressed quality along with the flow
Translation Review
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
G
r
i
f
f
i
t
h

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
]

a
t

1
4
:
2
8

2
6

J
u
n
e

2
0
1
4

of terza rima, I have often found it necessary to
write fewer lines in English than he uses in
Italian" (xxi). Dante's canto xix has 133 lines,
while Pinsky's has 124.
"Despite the high praise it received, even Pinsky's
translation has received negative reviews, such as
Clive Wilmer's, in "Dante made plain: sacrifices
and successes in two centuries of translating 'the
acerb Florentine'" (The Times Literary
Supplement, September 6, 1996). Wilmer states
that "the whole translation is marred by a curious
absence of conviction," and that "Pinsky some-
how contrives to make the Inferno dull" (4).
"Since this study, there have been no fewer than four
noteworthy translations, done by: Ellis (London:
Vintage, 1995); Musa (Bloomington: Indiana
University Press, 1996); Durling (New York:
Oxford University Press, 1997); and Zappulla
(New York: Pantheon Books, 1998).
"That is, except for the case of the descent of the
Holy Spirit on Pentecost Sunday (The Acts ofthe
Apostles 2: 4), at which event people of different
languages were able to comprehend each other.
"The other translators are Seamus Heaney, Mark
Strand, Daniel Halpern, Galway Kinnell, Cynthia
Macdonald, Amy Clampitt, Jorie Graham,
Charles Wright, Richard Howard, Stanley
Plumly, Robert Pinsky, Susan Mitchell, Carolyn
Forche, Richard Wilbur, W. S. Merwin, Alfred
Com, Sharon aids, Deborah Diggs, and Robert
Haas.
"Williams has also translated "two Greek tragedies
[and] a book of French poetry." However, it is his
work from Issa that has the most relevance here.
In translating the Greek plays, Williams
immersed himself"in translation theory and ideas
about Greek culture and the plays"; he is also flu-
ent in French (interview). The "versions" from
Issa, and thus Dante, are significant in that
Williams did not, nor was he able to, give each of
these projects the same energies he gave to his
Greek and French translations.
IJSee below for a discussion of translation, author-
ship, and originality.
"Williams first tried long lines, as in his own poetry,
but "that seemed wrong because it's a different
Translation Review
kind of speech than Dante was after" (interview
1). However, Williams uses short lines in his
"versions" of Issa, giving another comparison,
even if Williams claims no relation, between the
two poetic projects (interview).
"This, admittedly, would have been difficult, given
that the Inferno as a whole was put together by
various translators, with differing approaches and
interests.
161n fact, Pinsky writes of his general distaste of
"mere vowel rhymes" such as "claim/feign" or
"state/raid" (xx).
17But, unlike his successful rhymes, he does not point
out examples where he has had to compromise.
"Robert Durling's recent translation is also facing
page. It is interesting to note that he included no
introductory note on his translation, as Singleton
and Pinsky have with their facing-page transla-
tions.
"This is not Pinsky's first attempt at translation. He
has also worked with Czeslaw Milosz. I have not
been able to find any information on this work,
and the only help that Pinsky gave in his e-mail
interview was that "Two great differences are that
Czeslaw is alive, and I don't know any Polish"
(3). This translation project could therefore be
similar to Williams' "versions," but I have not
been able to compare the works.
"This was in response to a question regarding the
audience he was trying to reach, in which he also
stated that his intention was "not [to] 'reach' an
'audience'" (e-mail interview 4). However, a
"work of art" generally implies an artist creating
it, and Pinsky is very consciously placing himself
in that position.
"Although it should be remembered that, in Pinsky's
text, "originality" and "translation" are two ideas
that can coexist, where the translator is, by neces-
sity, creating an original by the very act of trans-
lation, because of the inaccessibility of the origi-
nal and the chain of relation between the transla-
tor and the original writer (who in tum is a trans-
lator of an original writer).
22At the very least, Singleton would likely charge
Pinsky with such, as well as all others who dis-
approve of terza rima translation on the sole basis
43
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
G
r
i
f
f
i
t
h

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
]

a
t

1
4
:
2
8

2
6

J
u
n
e

2
0
1
4

that it was the form Dante used.
230r if another, separate translation is made. Each
successive translation would, unless done with-
out any reference to previous translators, sup-
plant the one before it. This is not the case here;
because Pinsky was a participant in the Ecco
Press collection, his later translation supplants it.
"However, this becomes entangled when one also
considers Foucault's assertion that the author
"also serves to neutralize the contradictions that
may emerge in a series of texts" (151). Although
he is dealing here specifically with the unity of all
works by a certain author, the existence of multi-
ple translations of one work (ascribed to one
"original author") allows for multiple texts to
exist that one author cannot unify. Therefore,
what happens to the "author-function" in these
texts that both relate to but also diverge from one
another as well as the "original?" The closest we
could come to answering this would be to allow
the translator to fill the "author-function" as the
most recent author who works to neutralize the
contradictions specific to his own text. But this
does not account for any unity between the one
particular work and the others.
25Not to mention the numerous other texts in the tra-
dition of the same name.
44 Translation Review
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
G
r
i
f
f
i
t
h

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
]

a
t

1
4
:
2
8

2
6

J
u
n
e

2
0
1
4

Вам также может понравиться