Thursday, 5 June 2014

Poetry in translation... why it is bad (and an explanation for not appreciating Beowulf)

*

Poetry in translation is like an opera performed as a play without music; or the summary plot in the programme describing a play - it misses the point.

And, yes, this applies even to Tolkien, and therefore (probably) even to Beowulf.

http://notionclubpapers.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/review-of-beowulf-translation-and.html

It is not Beowulf I don't respond to; it is the lack of poetry.

*

I can illustrate with an example: I can read Middle English (Medieval English) since I studied Chaucer intensively aged 14-16, and have been reading the stuff ever since. So I can appreciate Chaucer as poetry - and the same applies (although it is more difficult) to many small Medieval lyrics, to William Langland's Piers Plowman, and the Gawain poet - indeed his Pearl I find almost unbearably moving, in parts.

But I have also read Nevill Coghill's Canterbury Tales and Troilus by Chaucer, and his excerpts from Piers Plowman - and I have read Tolkien's translations of the Gawain Poet; and qua poetry they left me cold - they were interesting in other way, but not as poetry.

So, I responded to the original - to the actual poetry - but 'not really' to the translations. And yet I would rate Coghill and Tolkien as among the very best of literary scholars and editors in their fields, as well as gifted writers and superbly well motivated to boot.

Poetry just does not translate.

*

Another example: the Psalms in the Bible. In the Authorized Version and in Coverdale's version in the Book of Common Prayer these are... well, beyond words as to their literary quality and Christian value.

But in modern translation... well, they are pretty worthless at best (eminently disposable) and at worst actively-misleading from a devotional perspective. The only thing which makes modern translations of the Psalms at all bearable is their echoes of the AV or Coverdale.

(This applies generally to the Bible - modern translations are more-or-less effective when reporting the life of Jesus - but unbearable, and probably wicked, when pulverising and regurgitating the poetic and mythic parts such as Genesis, the Song of Solomon, Isaiah's prophecies, Revelations.)

*

So to Beowulf.

You see, I can't read Anglo-Saxon, although I have made some efforts I this direction once or twice for a few weeks at a time - but it is too hard, too alien. I can just rise to a kind of pseudo Old English accent which might fool someone who knew nothing about it.

Therefore I cannot appreciate Beowulf as poetry, therefore I cannot appreciate it.

Not even when Tolkien is doing the translating (and I have read some other versions too - I found Michael Alexander's excerpts the most tolerable). I can get something else from Beowulf - but this is of the nature of a report on Beowulf - it is not the thing in itself.

*

The question then boils down to whether I appreciate a prose- or poeticized-summary of what happens in Beowulf - and the answer is: not much.

I don't find that Anglo Saxon world either comprehensible or especially likeable - when it is not expressed poetically. It is just like Cole's Notes (or as Americans have it - CliffNotes) I mean a study guide or crib.

I remember reading Cole's Notes for The Lord of the Rings back in the 1970s - not only were they laughably inaccurate, but the synopsis style made the book sound just silly and boring.

Yet that was just prose-to-prose translation - poetry-to-prose is even worse; even more destructive.

So, no; I don't really respond to Beowulf; and now you know why.

*