At 07:07 PM 10/18/98 +1300, Simon Cauchi wrote:
>I think there are some misconceptions about verse translation here. Of
>course it's impossible to find the pleasures of Virgil's poetry and
>especially of his Latin versification in Dryden's English translation. What
>you can fairly expect is a translation of Virgil's matter and the pleasures
>of Dryden's English versification. No doubt here and there in Dryden's
>translation as in most others the phrasing of the English may in some way
>be able to echo or imitate or suggest the very phrasing of the original,
>but such moments are necessarily few and far between--and (I think)
>comparatively trivial. More to the point is the variety of means by which
>the English poet manages to convey much of the poet's idea in an utterly
>different medium. To enjoy Dryden you have to forget about Latin hexameters
>(suspend your disbelief, so to speak, in the English heroic couplet) and
>accept Dryden's version on its own merits as an English poem. We have all
>been so indoctrinated with the idea that poetry is "made with words" that
>we make unreasonable demands of translations, somehow expecting them to
>convey the qualities of the versification of the original. It can't be
>done.
Simon is, as many of you know, both a gentleman and a scholar, and his
defense of Dryden has been thoughtful and urbane throughout. Same to you,
Colin. Before I give up the ghost on what has been a very fine thread,
though, I'd like to clarify something. No one (on this list, at least) has
criticized Dryden for failing to render the movement of Virgil's
hexameters. Dryden's couplets have, though, been criticized for "tidying
up." In this, Dryden's translation is false, not to the rhythms of its
original (where loyalty was not expected, who could reasonably complain of
betrayal?), but to the essential AMBIGUITY of Virgil's verse (on which see,
for instance, Quinn, Critical Description).
I've tried to avoid saying this, because terms like ambiguity and irony
seem to put the poet at the mercy of the interpreter. I'd hoped, instead,
to cite an ancient critic who compared Virgil's verba to "sand without
bottom." The problem is, I can't find the critic! Someone I respect very
much attributes the remark to M. Agrippa, but all I've found from the
latter so far is a remark to the effect that Virgil invented ugly new words
at the behest of Maecenas. Anyone on the list know the source of this
remark?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
David Wilson-Okamura http://www.virgil.org [EMAIL PROTECTED]
University of Chicago Online Virgil discussion, bibliography & links
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
To leave the Mantovano mailing list at any time, do NOT hit reply.
Instead, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message
"unsubscribe mantovano" in the body (omitting the quotation marks). You
can also unsubscribe at http://virgil.org/mantovano/mantovano.htm#unsub
