Pub Date : 2022-09-02DOI: 10.1080/07374836.2022.2128627
G. J. Racz
{"title":"The Cleverest Girl in Madrid. La discreta enamorada","authors":"G. J. Racz","doi":"10.1080/07374836.2022.2128627","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/07374836.2022.2128627","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":42066,"journal":{"name":"TRANSLATION REVIEW","volume":"114 1","pages":"52 - 55"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2022-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47251490","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-09-02DOI: 10.1080/07374836.2022.2142346
Kayvan Tahmasebian
Poetry translation occasionally arouses controversy among Iranian readers, especially when the work of great masters is involved. This sensitivity applies alike to classical master poets like H _ āfiz _ Shirāzī (d. 1390) and S _ ā’ib Tabrīzī (d. 1592) and modernist forerunners like Nima Yushij (d. 1960) and Bijan Elahi (d. 2010). Because of the damages they inflict on the original poems, translations are sometimes read like acts of profanation: the translator is accused of clumsiness, of going astray, of wasting the poem, by readers, at various levels of mastery of their native language and the language in which the poem in question has been translated and at various levels of concern for Persian literature, who do not find the pleasure and the sophistication they used to take from the poem in Persian. “But this is not H _ āfiz _ ,” “this is not S _ ā’ib,” “this is not Nima,” “this is not Elahi,” they complain about the alterity that the poem, and the poet, undergo through “inappropriate” translation. More adequate and “appropriate” translations are rarely suggested by the complainants. Of course, this negativity toward poetry translation does not eclipse other readers’ sympathy with the translator’s hazardous undertaking. I have been profaning poetry for around two decades now: I have published my translations of Friedrich Hölderlin, Stéphane Mallarmé, Francis Ponge, Alejandra Pizarnik, and Arthur Rimbaud in Iranian literary magazines (2004–2014). Since 2017, I have turned to translating Persian poetry into English. With Rebecca Ruth Gould, I have cotranslated modernist poets, Bijan Elahi, Nima Yushij, and Hasan Alizadeh (b. 1947), as well as classical poets, S _ ā’ib Tabrīzī, Khāqānī Shirvānī (d. 1199), and Jahān Malik Khātūn (d. circa 1393). Throughout the years I lectured at the University of Isfahan (2008–2017), I witnessed the students’ wry smiles and grim frowns at the translations from classical Persian by Edward Fitzgerald, Gertrude Bell, R. A. Nicholson, A. J. Arberry, and other eminent scholars of Persian literature. Classical Persian poetry has been read in English translation since the late eighteenth century. Presumably, native English translators of Persian poetry have been far less bothered by concerns about untranslatability than their Persian readers. William Jones’s versified translation of H _ āfiz _ ’s ghazal (“Agar ān turk-i shirāzī”) was published first in his Grammar of the Persian Language (1771), in conjunction with a prose translation evidently for language learning reasons. By adding the prose translation, Jones meant less to highlight the lost information in the versified version than to show learners why the poem’s images and allusions “cannot be translated literally into any European language.” Far from dooming the poem to untranslatability, Jones admits that he attempted to translate it into verse because he was pleased by “the wildness and simplicity of this Persian song.” The subsequent versifications of Persian
诗歌翻译偶尔会引起伊朗读者的争议，特别是当涉及到大师的作品时。这种敏感性同样适用于古典诗人大师，如H āfiz Shirāzī(1390年)和S ā ā ' ib tabr āz ā(1592年)，以及现代主义先驱，如尼玛·尤士杰(1960年)和比扬·埃拉希(2010年)。因为他们造成的损害在原诗,翻译有时读起来像亵渎的行为:笨拙的翻译被指控,误入歧途,浪费这首诗的读者,各级掌握他们的母语,这首诗的语言问题已被翻译和各级对波斯文学,那些没有找到快乐和他们使用的复杂性从波斯的诗。“但这不是H āfiz”，“这不是S ā ib”，“这不是尼玛”，“这不是以拉希”，他们抱怨这首诗和诗人，经历了“不恰当的”翻译。申诉人很少建议更充分和“适当”的翻译。当然，这种对诗歌翻译的否定并没有掩盖其他读者对译者危险事业的同情。我亵渎诗歌已经有大约二十年了:我在伊朗文学杂志上发表了我翻译的弗里德里希Hölderlin、斯特姆萨芬·马拉玛格、弗朗西斯·庞格、亚历杭德拉·皮萨尼克和亚瑟·兰波的作品(2004-2014)。从2017年开始，我开始把波斯语诗歌翻译成英语。我与Rebecca Ruth Gould合作翻译了现代主义诗人Bijan Elahi, Nima Yushij和Hasan Alizadeh(生于1947年)，以及古典诗人S ā ' ib tabr z ā， Khāqānī Shirvānī(生于1199年)和Jahān Malik Khātūn(生于大约1393年)。2008年至2017年，我在伊斯法罕大学(University of Isfahan)授课，目睹了学生们对爱德华·菲茨杰拉德(Edward Fitzgerald)、格特鲁德·贝尔(Gertrude Bell)、r·a·尼科尔森(R. A. Nicholson)、A. J. Arberry等著名波斯文学学者翻译的古典波斯语作品的苦笑和阴沉的皱眉。自18世纪后期以来，古典波斯诗歌就有了英文译本。据推测，波斯语诗歌的英语母语译者远没有波斯语读者那么担心不可译性。威廉·琼斯(William Jones)对H _ āfiz _的ghazal(“Agar ān turk-i shirāzī”)的诗体翻译首先发表在他的《波斯语言语法》(1771)中，与散文翻译一起发表，显然是出于语言学习的原因。通过添加散文翻译，琼斯的意思不是强调诗化版本中丢失的信息，而是向学习者展示为什么这首诗的形象和典故“不能按字面意思翻译成任何欧洲语言”。琼斯承认，他试图将这首诗翻译成诗歌，因为他喜欢“这首波斯语歌曲的野性和简单”，而不是注定这首诗不可翻译。后来的波斯诗歌译本，如约瑟夫·钱皮恩(Joseph Champion)从firdaws ' s Shāhnāma(1790)选选的段落，或乔治·巴罗(George Barrow)对H āfiz _(1835)的意译，与其说是这些诗人在英语中的忠实表现，不如说是东方主义形式的英语诗歌练习。另一方面，通常以学术为目的的散文翻译对翻译中难以克服的困难表现出不同的认识。例如，H. Wilberforce Clarke在他对整个Dīvān的翻译的序言中承认:“[T]这是一个散文翻译，并声称要给出字面和ūfīistic的含义。”题干译文:要把H . āfez写在诗里，一个人至少应该是一个与作者力量相当的诗人。即使这样，也几乎不可能给波斯诗歌披上英国的外衣，以真正传达它的美;即使这样翻译出来，对学生也没有什么价值。”然而，并不是所有的英语翻译经典翻译评论2022，卷114，第1期。1, 17-26 https://doi.org/10.1080/07374836.2022.2142346
{"title":"Translating Persian Poetry and its Discontents","authors":"Kayvan Tahmasebian","doi":"10.1080/07374836.2022.2142346","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/07374836.2022.2142346","url":null,"abstract":"Poetry translation occasionally arouses controversy among Iranian readers, especially when the work of great masters is involved. This sensitivity applies alike to classical master poets like H _ āfiz _ Shirāzī (d. 1390) and S _ ā’ib Tabrīzī (d. 1592) and modernist forerunners like Nima Yushij (d. 1960) and Bijan Elahi (d. 2010). Because of the damages they inflict on the original poems, translations are sometimes read like acts of profanation: the translator is accused of clumsiness, of going astray, of wasting the poem, by readers, at various levels of mastery of their native language and the language in which the poem in question has been translated and at various levels of concern for Persian literature, who do not find the pleasure and the sophistication they used to take from the poem in Persian. “But this is not H _ āfiz _ ,” “this is not S _ ā’ib,” “this is not Nima,” “this is not Elahi,” they complain about the alterity that the poem, and the poet, undergo through “inappropriate” translation. More adequate and “appropriate” translations are rarely suggested by the complainants. Of course, this negativity toward poetry translation does not eclipse other readers’ sympathy with the translator’s hazardous undertaking. I have been profaning poetry for around two decades now: I have published my translations of Friedrich Hölderlin, Stéphane Mallarmé, Francis Ponge, Alejandra Pizarnik, and Arthur Rimbaud in Iranian literary magazines (2004–2014). Since 2017, I have turned to translating Persian poetry into English. With Rebecca Ruth Gould, I have cotranslated modernist poets, Bijan Elahi, Nima Yushij, and Hasan Alizadeh (b. 1947), as well as classical poets, S _ ā’ib Tabrīzī, Khāqānī Shirvānī (d. 1199), and Jahān Malik Khātūn (d. circa 1393). Throughout the years I lectured at the University of Isfahan (2008–2017), I witnessed the students’ wry smiles and grim frowns at the translations from classical Persian by Edward Fitzgerald, Gertrude Bell, R. A. Nicholson, A. J. Arberry, and other eminent scholars of Persian literature. Classical Persian poetry has been read in English translation since the late eighteenth century. Presumably, native English translators of Persian poetry have been far less bothered by concerns about untranslatability than their Persian readers. William Jones’s versified translation of H _ āfiz _ ’s ghazal (“Agar ān turk-i shirāzī”) was published first in his Grammar of the Persian Language (1771), in conjunction with a prose translation evidently for language learning reasons. By adding the prose translation, Jones meant less to highlight the lost information in the versified version than to show learners why the poem’s images and allusions “cannot be translated literally into any European language.” Far from dooming the poem to untranslatability, Jones admits that he attempted to translate it into verse because he was pleased by “the wildness and simplicity of this Persian song.” The subsequent versifications of Persian ","PeriodicalId":42066,"journal":{"name":"TRANSLATION REVIEW","volume":"114 1","pages":"17 - 26"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2022-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44104231","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-09-02DOI: 10.1080/07374836.2022.2096162
Mengying Jiang
According to the translation database “Three Percent,” established at the University of Rochester to collect data on international literature, texts written by women from 2008 to 2018 constitute only 28.7 percent of all the translations in the database, consisting of some 1,394 titles out of a total of 4,849. As translated literature makes up a limited fraction of the books in the Anglophone market, translated literature written by women can be defined as a minority within a minority. According to Josh Stenberg, when selecting Chinese literature for translation, Anglophone publishers tend to “slant towards the male, the racy, the overtly political, the transgressive, and the weird.” Many of the male writers’ historical epics that sweep through the political landmarks of twentiethcentury China have been translated. By contrast, their female counterparts have been largely neglected. The first large-scale social awakening of Chinese women writers’ female consciousness did not occur until the New Cultural Movement (1915–1927), a movement that had advocated for women’s rights, power, authority, and status. However, this feminist trend was truncated by the subsequent AntiJapanese War (1937–1945), which instigated a wave of revolutionary writing. The war became the dominant theme and women’s self-awareness was stifled by nationalism. After the founding of the People’s Republic of China in 1949, women’s voices were silenced, as the policy of the Chinese Communist Party upheld absolute equality between the two sexes. The Party legally guaranteed and protected women’s rights to participate in the workforce, to choose their own marriage partners, and to demand divorces. Nevertheless, such a statesponsored liberation emphasized women’s equal responsibility as men to serve the nation, thereby discouraging their pursuit to claim female characteristics and suppressing their desire to articulate their own concerns. During the Cultural Revolution (1966–1976), sexual identity and gender difference were further denied in the cultural discourse. Female-conscious expression was either discouraged or disallowed. The iconic female figures were the asexual “iron girls” who undertook the revolutionary struggle equally with their male counterparts. It was not until 1978, when the ideological and political restrictions imposed on literature were loosened, that women’s self-conscious writing started to flourish again. Women writers in post-Mao China thrive as a distinct group on the literary scene, ushering in a second upsurge of literary output by women writers in the Chinese mainland. The focus of this article is to discuss the translation into English of Chinese women writers after the reform and opening up in 1978 by different translation agents. Agents of translation are perceived as “social actors who are heavily involved in the dynamics of translation production and the power interplay arising at every stage throughout the translation process.” This definition of age
{"title":"Contemporary Chinese Women Writers in English Translation: An Agent-oriented Investigation","authors":"Mengying Jiang","doi":"10.1080/07374836.2022.2096162","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/07374836.2022.2096162","url":null,"abstract":"According to the translation database “Three Percent,” established at the University of Rochester to collect data on international literature, texts written by women from 2008 to 2018 constitute only 28.7 percent of all the translations in the database, consisting of some 1,394 titles out of a total of 4,849. As translated literature makes up a limited fraction of the books in the Anglophone market, translated literature written by women can be defined as a minority within a minority. According to Josh Stenberg, when selecting Chinese literature for translation, Anglophone publishers tend to “slant towards the male, the racy, the overtly political, the transgressive, and the weird.” Many of the male writers’ historical epics that sweep through the political landmarks of twentiethcentury China have been translated. By contrast, their female counterparts have been largely neglected. The first large-scale social awakening of Chinese women writers’ female consciousness did not occur until the New Cultural Movement (1915–1927), a movement that had advocated for women’s rights, power, authority, and status. However, this feminist trend was truncated by the subsequent AntiJapanese War (1937–1945), which instigated a wave of revolutionary writing. The war became the dominant theme and women’s self-awareness was stifled by nationalism. After the founding of the People’s Republic of China in 1949, women’s voices were silenced, as the policy of the Chinese Communist Party upheld absolute equality between the two sexes. The Party legally guaranteed and protected women’s rights to participate in the workforce, to choose their own marriage partners, and to demand divorces. Nevertheless, such a statesponsored liberation emphasized women’s equal responsibility as men to serve the nation, thereby discouraging their pursuit to claim female characteristics and suppressing their desire to articulate their own concerns. During the Cultural Revolution (1966–1976), sexual identity and gender difference were further denied in the cultural discourse. Female-conscious expression was either discouraged or disallowed. The iconic female figures were the asexual “iron girls” who undertook the revolutionary struggle equally with their male counterparts. It was not until 1978, when the ideological and political restrictions imposed on literature were loosened, that women’s self-conscious writing started to flourish again. Women writers in post-Mao China thrive as a distinct group on the literary scene, ushering in a second upsurge of literary output by women writers in the Chinese mainland. The focus of this article is to discuss the translation into English of Chinese women writers after the reform and opening up in 1978 by different translation agents. Agents of translation are perceived as “social actors who are heavily involved in the dynamics of translation production and the power interplay arising at every stage throughout the translation process.” This definition of age","PeriodicalId":42066,"journal":{"name":"TRANSLATION REVIEW","volume":"114 1","pages":"27 - 37"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2022-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44097587","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-09-02DOI: 10.1080/07374836.2022.2128625
John Duval
{"title":"Continental England: Form, Translation, and Chaucer in the Hundred Years War","authors":"John Duval","doi":"10.1080/07374836.2022.2128625","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/07374836.2022.2128625","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":42066,"journal":{"name":"TRANSLATION REVIEW","volume":"114 1","pages":"50 - 51"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2022-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47385360","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-09-02DOI: 10.1080/07374836.2022.2125755
Shelby Vincent
{"title":"A Conversation with Ukrainian Translators Kate Tsurkan and Daisy Gibbons on Translating and Creating Amid the Russian Invasion","authors":"Shelby Vincent","doi":"10.1080/07374836.2022.2125755","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/07374836.2022.2125755","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":42066,"journal":{"name":"TRANSLATION REVIEW","volume":"114 1","pages":"1 - 10"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2022-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46648048","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-09-02DOI: 10.1080/07374836.2022.2140236
J. M. McKeown
Catherine Perrot (1620–169–) gave painting instruction to members of the French royal family, including Marie-Louise d’Orléans, niece of Louis XIV and Queen Consort of Spain from 1679 to 1689. At the age of 62, Perrot was admitted to the Académie Royale de Peinture et de Sculpture, one of only fifteen women to be admitted in the Academy’s 145-year existence. Four years later, she published Les Leçons Royales ou la manière de peindre en mignature les fleurs & les oyseaux, par l’explication des livres de fleurs & d’oyseaux de feu Nicolas Robert, fleuriste (1686). In 1693, at the age of 73, Perrot completed Traité de la mignature. This final work contains the same studies of flowers and birds as in the previous manual, but it includes some important additions. There is a different dedication and introduction, a comprehensive list of definitions of technical terms, and an index. More significantly, there are theoretical reflections, as well as instructions for the drawing and painting of landscapes, biblical figures, and saints. In her first publication, Perrot makes a tepid initial step into watercolor manuals, a genre dominated by male artists at the time. She based her instructions on engravings by Nicolas Robert, a male contemporary well established in the field and well positioned at the court of Louis XIV as the Peintre Ordinaire de Sa Majesté pour la miniature; he also acted as Perrot’s teacher and was revered by her. Perrot’s subjects in the 1686 edition—flowers and birds in miniature—are safely anchored in feminine artistic convention. But in her revised copy, Perrot has taken on landscapes and religious subjects, considered more serious themes, and has included the more academically grounded component of art theory. In this enhanced second edition, Perrot makes an explicit, direct connection between the visual arts and words. Beginning from the premise that “painting is the language of mutes,” Perrot writes that visual representations of figures “express feelings of the heart just as words do when they are joined together.” To represent an object well is akin to pronouncing a specific word “so that it is understood perfectly, without stuttering.” For Perrot, a painting is both seen and heard—and, in creating a work of art, the artist has something to both show and to tell. Messages are conveyed and a kind of intimacy exists—if only temporarily— between artist and viewer. The multi-faceted sensorial experience, then—involving speaking, hearing, seeing, and feeling—results in a rich hub of shared meaning between creator, creation, and viewer, and beyond. The creative process, then, is dynamic across varied mediums, and is achieved, and replicated, when an inspired idea assumes shareable forms. A rare first edition of the 1686 watercolor manual came to my attention when my colleague, art historian and scholar Dr. Diane Radycki, shared it with me in the hope that I might translate it into English from the original French. Student scholar Mirand
凯瑟琳·佩罗(1620-169 -)为法国王室成员提供绘画指导，其中包括路易十四的侄女、1679年至1689年的西班牙王后玛丽-路易丝·德奥尔萨姆斯。62岁时，佩罗被皇家美术与雕塑学院录取，成为该学院145年历史中仅有的15位女性之一。四年后，她出版了《花与羊》一书，解释了花与羊的关系，并在1686年出版了《花与羊的关系》。1693年，73岁的佩罗完成了《移民描摹》。这个最后的工作包含了与前一个手册中相同的花卉和鸟类的研究，但它包括一些重要的补充。有一个不同的奉献和介绍，一个技术术语定义的综合列表，和一个索引。更重要的是，书中有理论反思，以及对风景画、圣经人物和圣徒的绘画指导。在她的第一本出版物中，佩罗迈出了不温不火的第一步，进入了当时由男性艺术家主导的水彩手册。她以尼古拉斯·罗伯特(Nicolas Robert)的版画为指导，尼古拉斯·罗伯特是一位同时代的男性，在这一领域有着良好的地位，在路易十四的宫廷中被称为Sa majest pour la miniature的Peintre Ordinaire;他也是佩罗特的老师，并受到她的尊敬。在1686年的版本中，佩罗的主题——花和鸟的微缩——安全地锚定在女性艺术传统中。但在她修改后的版本中，佩罗采用了风景和宗教题材，考虑了更严肃的主题，并纳入了更有学术基础的艺术理论组成部分。在这个增强的第二版中，佩罗在视觉艺术和文字之间建立了明确而直接的联系。从“绘画是无声的语言”的前提出发，佩罗写道，人物的视觉表现“表达了内心的感受，就像文字连接在一起一样。”要很好地表达一个对象，就类似于发音一个特定的单词，“这样它就能被完美地理解，而不会口吃。”对佩罗来说，一幅画既能被看到，也能被听到——在创作一件艺术品时，艺术家既有要展示的东西，也有要讲述的东西。信息被传递，一种亲密的存在——即使只是暂时的——在艺术家和观众之间。这种多方面的感官体验，包括说话、听觉、视觉和感觉，在创造者、被造物和观看者之间形成了一个丰富的共享意义的中心。因此，创意过程在不同的媒介中是动态的，当一个灵感的想法采用可共享的形式时，它就会被实现和复制。我的同事、艺术史学家和学者黛安·拉迪基博士(Dr. Diane Radycki)与我分享了一本罕见的第一版1686年水彩画手册，希望我能把它从法文原版翻译成英文。学生学者米兰达·库珀(Miranda Cooper)制作了一份初稿翻译，并为高年级的一个顶点研究项目添加了传记和历史背景。在佩罗专心致志地翻译这本书的六个月里，库珀对她着迷了。阅读这位艺术家的作品，然后试图传达她的内容和原始的语气和风格，这一过程让库珀感觉自己与佩罗进行了一次漫长而深入的对话，就像罗伯特·韦施勒(Robert Weschler)在《无舞台表演》(Performing Without a Stage)中描述的那样，是一种“长期的亲密关系”;文学翻译的艺术。试图用英语表达艺术家的话语是一个挑战;面对这一挑战，我觉得自己比那些没有仔细研究佩罗表情的人更了解她。库珀回忆说:“最粗糙的草稿也是我对凯瑟琳·佩罗的介绍……她的才华和组织能力，以及她的影响力和人脉。”我所做的工作是检查库珀的翻译评论2022,VOL. 114, NO. 5。1,38 - 46 https://doi.org/10.1080/07374836.2022.2140236
{"title":"Self-Portrait of an Artist: Translation and the Creative Process of Catherine Perrot","authors":"J. M. McKeown","doi":"10.1080/07374836.2022.2140236","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/07374836.2022.2140236","url":null,"abstract":"Catherine Perrot (1620–169–) gave painting instruction to members of the French royal family, including Marie-Louise d’Orléans, niece of Louis XIV and Queen Consort of Spain from 1679 to 1689. At the age of 62, Perrot was admitted to the Académie Royale de Peinture et de Sculpture, one of only fifteen women to be admitted in the Academy’s 145-year existence. Four years later, she published Les Leçons Royales ou la manière de peindre en mignature les fleurs & les oyseaux, par l’explication des livres de fleurs & d’oyseaux de feu Nicolas Robert, fleuriste (1686). In 1693, at the age of 73, Perrot completed Traité de la mignature. This final work contains the same studies of flowers and birds as in the previous manual, but it includes some important additions. There is a different dedication and introduction, a comprehensive list of definitions of technical terms, and an index. More significantly, there are theoretical reflections, as well as instructions for the drawing and painting of landscapes, biblical figures, and saints. In her first publication, Perrot makes a tepid initial step into watercolor manuals, a genre dominated by male artists at the time. She based her instructions on engravings by Nicolas Robert, a male contemporary well established in the field and well positioned at the court of Louis XIV as the Peintre Ordinaire de Sa Majesté pour la miniature; he also acted as Perrot’s teacher and was revered by her. Perrot’s subjects in the 1686 edition—flowers and birds in miniature—are safely anchored in feminine artistic convention. But in her revised copy, Perrot has taken on landscapes and religious subjects, considered more serious themes, and has included the more academically grounded component of art theory. In this enhanced second edition, Perrot makes an explicit, direct connection between the visual arts and words. Beginning from the premise that “painting is the language of mutes,” Perrot writes that visual representations of figures “express feelings of the heart just as words do when they are joined together.” To represent an object well is akin to pronouncing a specific word “so that it is understood perfectly, without stuttering.” For Perrot, a painting is both seen and heard—and, in creating a work of art, the artist has something to both show and to tell. Messages are conveyed and a kind of intimacy exists—if only temporarily— between artist and viewer. The multi-faceted sensorial experience, then—involving speaking, hearing, seeing, and feeling—results in a rich hub of shared meaning between creator, creation, and viewer, and beyond. The creative process, then, is dynamic across varied mediums, and is achieved, and replicated, when an inspired idea assumes shareable forms. A rare first edition of the 1686 watercolor manual came to my attention when my colleague, art historian and scholar Dr. Diane Radycki, shared it with me in the hope that I might translate it into English from the original French. Student scholar Mirand","PeriodicalId":42066,"journal":{"name":"TRANSLATION REVIEW","volume":"114 1","pages":"38 - 46"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2022-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47329879","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-09-02DOI: 10.1080/07374836.2022.2128626
Annette Fisher
{"title":"The Man Who Brought Brodsky into English: Conversations with George L. Kline","authors":"Annette Fisher","doi":"10.1080/07374836.2022.2128626","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/07374836.2022.2128626","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":42066,"journal":{"name":"TRANSLATION REVIEW","volume":"114 1","pages":"47 - 49"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2022-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44655923","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-09-02DOI: 10.1080/07374836.2022.2117749
Steven G. Kellman
To demonstrate the Shinto belief in impermanence and renewal, the Ise Grand Shrine in Japan is demolished and reconstructed every twenty years. Western readers tend not to be Shintoists, but it is a truism among publishers of literary classics that every generation requires a new translation. “A true translator,” wrote the trilingual critic George Steiner, “knows that his labour belongs ‘to oblivion’ (inevitably each generation retranslates).” You do not have to wait an entire generation to locate a new version of Antigone, Don Quixote, and the Bible, each of which has been rendered into English dozens of times. Most of those do fade into the oblivion from which their often-anonymous translators never emerged. But the need for an up-to-date take becomes more apparent as the English language evolves, and as publishers sense a market for a text in the public domain. In the ecology of global culture, the task of the translator is unremitting. No matter how obsequiously faithful, no rendition is ever definitive, because the English language is a moving target. Although George Chapman’s Homer inspired John Keats, it is unreadable today. “Translators,” according to Alexander Pushkin, are “the post-horses of enlightenment.” It is necessary to replace them with fresh mounts along the way. In 1948, a year after Albert Camus published his second novel, La Peste, it appeared in English as The Plague. Although Paul Auster called translators “the shadow heroes of literature, the oftenforgotten instruments that make it possible for different cultures to talk to one another,” the translator of The Plague, Stuart Gilbert, was hardly unknown. His name did not appear on the cover, but Gilbert (1883–1969) was known as a friend and pioneering scholar of James Joyce. He was also a prolific translator, transposing from French into English a constellation of authors including Jean Cocteau, Edouard Dujardin, André Malraux, Roger Martin du Gard, Jean-Paul Sartre, Georges Simenon, and Alexis de Tocqueville. In 1946, Gilbert had published a translation of Camus’s first novel, L’Etranger (as The Stranger), and he would later translate Camus’s plays Caligula (as Caligula), Le Malentendu (as The Misunderstanding), L’Etat de siege (as State of Siege), and Les Justes (as The Just Assassins). An Englishman who lived most of his life in France, Gilbert was an accomplished retailer of French literature to Anglophone readers. La Peste has been translated into dozens of other languages, including Afrikaans, Catalan, Gujarati, Persian, Turkish, and Vietnamese. And there are at least two different translations of the novel into German, Hebrew, Italian, and Spanish, respectively. However, for seventy-three years, Gilbert’s The Plague had been the only rendition of Camus’s novel available in English. To read Dr. Bernard Rieux’s account of how the citizens of Oran experienced an epidemic in the indeterminate year 194_, an American without French had to rely on Gilbert. However, in 2021,
为了展示神道对无常和更新的信仰，日本的伊势大神社每二十年被拆除和重建一次。西方读者往往不是神道教信徒，但在文学经典出版商中，每一代人都需要一个新的译本，这是不言而喻的。“一个真正的翻译家，”三语评论家乔治·斯坦纳写道，“知道他的劳动属于‘遗忘’（不可避免地每一代人都会重新翻译）。”你不必等整整一代人才能找到新版的《安提戈涅》、《堂吉诃德》和《圣经》，每一本都被翻译成了几十次英语。其中大多数确实被遗忘了，他们经常匿名的翻译从未出现过。但随着英语的发展，以及出版商意识到文本在公共领域的市场，对最新版本的需求变得更加明显。在全球文化生态中，译者的任务是不懈的。无论多么谄媚地忠实，没有一种演绎是决定性的，因为英语是一个移动的目标。尽管乔治·查普曼的《荷马》启发了约翰·济慈，但它在今天是无法阅读的。根据亚历山大·普希金（Alexander Pushkin）的说法，“翻译家”是“启蒙的后马”。一路上有必要用新的坐骑取代他们。1948年，阿尔伯特·加缪出版了他的第二部小说《瘟疫》一年后，这部小说以《瘟疫》的英文出现。尽管保罗·奥斯特称翻译家为“文学的影子英雄，那些经常被遗忘的工具，使不同文化之间可以相互交流”，但《瘟疫》的翻译家斯图尔特·吉尔伯特几乎不为人知。他的名字没有出现在封面上，但吉尔伯特（1883-1969）是詹姆斯·乔伊斯的朋友和开拓性学者。他也是一位多产的翻译家，将让·科克托、爱德华·杜雅尔丁、安德烈·马尔劳、罗杰·马丁·杜加德、让-保罗·萨特、乔治·西蒙农和亚历克西斯·德·托克维尔等一批作家从法语翻译成英语。1946年，吉尔伯特出版了加缪第一部小说《陌生人》的译本，他后来翻译了加缪的戏剧《卡里古拉》、《马伦特杜》、《围攻之国》和《正义的刺客》。吉尔伯特是一位英国人，一生大部分时间都生活在法国，他是一位向英语读者推销法国文学的成功人士。La Peste已被翻译成数十种其他语言，包括南非荷兰语、加泰罗尼亚语、古吉拉特语、波斯语、土耳其语和越南语。这部小说至少有两种不同的译本，分别是德语、希伯来语、意大利语和西班牙语。然而，73年来，吉尔伯特的《瘟疫》一直是加缪小说的唯一英文版本。为了阅读Bernard Rieux博士关于奥兰公民如何在不确定的194_年经历流行病的描述，一个没有法国人的美国人不得不依赖吉尔伯特。然而，在2021年，吉尔伯特版本的出版商克诺夫在其目录中添加了《瘟疫》的另一个译本。吉尔伯特的继任者劳拉·马里斯（Laura Marris）的名字出现在封面上，这无疑让当前的翻译运动感到高兴。三十四岁的马里斯只有吉尔伯特翻译《瘟疫》时年龄的一半多一点，也就是六十八岁。然而，她已经出版了当代作家Christophe Boltranski和Géraldine Schwarz以及加缪的密友Louis Guilloux的书的译本。尽管她坚称自己在新冠肺炎爆发前就开始翻译加缪的小说，但马里斯版本的《瘟疫》来得正是时候，这本书成了《新观察家报》中伊丽莎白·菲利普所说的“la Bible de ces temps tourmentés”（这些痛苦时代的圣经）。瘟疫从来都不是晦涩难懂的；它被广泛阅读和钦佩，至今仍是《2022年翻译评论》，第114卷，第1期，11-16页https://doi.org/10.1080/07374836.2022.2117749
{"title":"The Plague, Again","authors":"Steven G. Kellman","doi":"10.1080/07374836.2022.2117749","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/07374836.2022.2117749","url":null,"abstract":"To demonstrate the Shinto belief in impermanence and renewal, the Ise Grand Shrine in Japan is demolished and reconstructed every twenty years. Western readers tend not to be Shintoists, but it is a truism among publishers of literary classics that every generation requires a new translation. “A true translator,” wrote the trilingual critic George Steiner, “knows that his labour belongs ‘to oblivion’ (inevitably each generation retranslates).” You do not have to wait an entire generation to locate a new version of Antigone, Don Quixote, and the Bible, each of which has been rendered into English dozens of times. Most of those do fade into the oblivion from which their often-anonymous translators never emerged. But the need for an up-to-date take becomes more apparent as the English language evolves, and as publishers sense a market for a text in the public domain. In the ecology of global culture, the task of the translator is unremitting. No matter how obsequiously faithful, no rendition is ever definitive, because the English language is a moving target. Although George Chapman’s Homer inspired John Keats, it is unreadable today. “Translators,” according to Alexander Pushkin, are “the post-horses of enlightenment.” It is necessary to replace them with fresh mounts along the way. In 1948, a year after Albert Camus published his second novel, La Peste, it appeared in English as The Plague. Although Paul Auster called translators “the shadow heroes of literature, the oftenforgotten instruments that make it possible for different cultures to talk to one another,” the translator of The Plague, Stuart Gilbert, was hardly unknown. His name did not appear on the cover, but Gilbert (1883–1969) was known as a friend and pioneering scholar of James Joyce. He was also a prolific translator, transposing from French into English a constellation of authors including Jean Cocteau, Edouard Dujardin, André Malraux, Roger Martin du Gard, Jean-Paul Sartre, Georges Simenon, and Alexis de Tocqueville. In 1946, Gilbert had published a translation of Camus’s first novel, L’Etranger (as The Stranger), and he would later translate Camus’s plays Caligula (as Caligula), Le Malentendu (as The Misunderstanding), L’Etat de siege (as State of Siege), and Les Justes (as The Just Assassins). An Englishman who lived most of his life in France, Gilbert was an accomplished retailer of French literature to Anglophone readers. La Peste has been translated into dozens of other languages, including Afrikaans, Catalan, Gujarati, Persian, Turkish, and Vietnamese. And there are at least two different translations of the novel into German, Hebrew, Italian, and Spanish, respectively. However, for seventy-three years, Gilbert’s The Plague had been the only rendition of Camus’s novel available in English. To read Dr. Bernard Rieux’s account of how the citizens of Oran experienced an epidemic in the indeterminate year 194_, an American without French had to rely on Gilbert. However, in 2021, ","PeriodicalId":42066,"journal":{"name":"TRANSLATION REVIEW","volume":"114 1","pages":"11 - 16"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2022-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49100111","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：