波斯诗歌的翻译及其不满

Pub Date : 2022-09-02 DOI:10.1080/07374836.2022.2142346
Kayvan Tahmasebian
{"title":"波斯诗歌的翻译及其不满","authors":"Kayvan Tahmasebian","doi":"10.1080/07374836.2022.2142346","DOIUrl":null,"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 poetry, such as Joseph Champion’s selected passages from Firdawsī’s Shāhnāma (1790) or George Barrow’s free translations of H _ āfiz _ (1835), were rather Orientalist forms of poetic exercise in English than faithful representations of these poets in English. On the other hand, prose translations, which were usually produced for scholarly purposes, showed a different appreciation of insurmountable difficulties of translation. H. Wilberforce Clarke, for instance, acknowledges in the preface to his translation of the entire Dīvān of H _ āfiz _ that “[T]his is a prose-translation and professes to give the literal and s _ ūfīistic meanings. To render H _ āfez _ in verse, one should be a poet at least equal in power to the author. Even then it would well-nigh be impossible to clothe Persian verse with such an English dress as would truly convey its beauties; and if such a translation could be made, it would be of little value to the student.” However, not all English translators of classical TRANSLATION REVIEW 2022, VOL. 114, NO. 1, 17–26 https://doi.org/10.1080/07374836.2022.2142346","PeriodicalId":0,"journal":{"name":"","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Translating Persian Poetry and its Discontents\",\"authors\":\"Kayvan Tahmasebian\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/07374836.2022.2142346\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"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 poetry, such as Joseph Champion’s selected passages from Firdawsī’s Shāhnāma (1790) or George Barrow’s free translations of H _ āfiz _ (1835), were rather Orientalist forms of poetic exercise in English than faithful representations of these poets in English. On the other hand, prose translations, which were usually produced for scholarly purposes, showed a different appreciation of insurmountable difficulties of translation. H. Wilberforce Clarke, for instance, acknowledges in the preface to his translation of the entire Dīvān of H _ āfiz _ that “[T]his is a prose-translation and professes to give the literal and s _ ūfīistic meanings. To render H _ āfez _ in verse, one should be a poet at least equal in power to the author. Even then it would well-nigh be impossible to clothe Persian verse with such an English dress as would truly convey its beauties; and if such a translation could be made, it would be of little value to the student.” However, not all English translators of classical TRANSLATION REVIEW 2022, VOL. 114, NO. 1, 17–26 https://doi.org/10.1080/07374836.2022.2142346\",\"PeriodicalId\":0,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-09-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/07374836.2022.2142346\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/07374836.2022.2142346","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

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
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
Translating Persian Poetry and its Discontents
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 poetry, such as Joseph Champion’s selected passages from Firdawsī’s Shāhnāma (1790) or George Barrow’s free translations of H _ āfiz _ (1835), were rather Orientalist forms of poetic exercise in English than faithful representations of these poets in English. On the other hand, prose translations, which were usually produced for scholarly purposes, showed a different appreciation of insurmountable difficulties of translation. H. Wilberforce Clarke, for instance, acknowledges in the preface to his translation of the entire Dīvān of H _ āfiz _ that “[T]his is a prose-translation and professes to give the literal and s _ ūfīistic meanings. To render H _ āfez _ in verse, one should be a poet at least equal in power to the author. Even then it would well-nigh be impossible to clothe Persian verse with such an English dress as would truly convey its beauties; and if such a translation could be made, it would be of little value to the student.” However, not all English translators of classical TRANSLATION REVIEW 2022, VOL. 114, NO. 1, 17–26 https://doi.org/10.1080/07374836.2022.2142346
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1