Rabindranath Tagore is far more well-known as a Bengali writer (among other things) than as a translator. And shouldn't he be? He was the first non-European to receive a Nobel Prize for Literature. In addition to literature, he was skilled and insanely influential to Bengali music and art. As an Indian nationalist, you'll find his compositions as national anthems.
But resources on his views of translation are fairly scarce. He did, however, write to the Spanish translator Joan Mascaró on his translation of the Upanishads, a collection of Hindu philosophical texts.
What He Said
"...I feel grateful to you for your translation which fortunately is not strictly literal and therefore nearer to truth..."
"What you have omitted to translate also shows your discrimination, for there are large tracts of writings, specially in great Upanishads like Chandogya which are symbolical and which would yield their mystic meaning only when read in context with the contemporary life and usages."
Thus
In these quotes, Tagore states something similar to what we've seen in Walter Benjamin's writings. A distinction is made between the cultural context of the original and the translation. In this case, Tagore suggests that the translator does well to adapt even the symbols of the original to fit the understanding of the target audience. In this way, the symbols can be better understood.
Therefore, the literal meanings, the literal words, are only secondary to conveying the idea and the image - to conveying the truth that the a work portrays.
How It Matters
In Basudeb Chakraborti's article, "The Unrecognised Work of Tagore as a Translator", the author states that his self-translation of his Bengali play Rakta Karabi into the English Red Oleander, was a disaster - primarily because the target audience did not know the Bengali symbols and references.
Tagore's views make logical sense - how can a target audience understand the core of the work, if they don't understand the references or symbols? I found this in dubbing, too, when watching the Japanese comedy show Sergeant Frog. Japanese jokes or references would be completely lost on an average American, but the dubbing provides clear jokes for English speaking audiences.
Yet at the same time, there is a strong belief that adapting the source text too much also destroys its distinct personality (See my article on Gayatri Spiyak). One way to combat this is footnotes (which is a personal favorite), or notes at the back of the book. But in the end I suppose it's up to the translator to decide how to translate the truth of symbol.
What He Said
Rabindranath Tagore (1861-1941), letter to Joan Mascaró (December 22, 1938), in Correspondència de Joan Mascaró (1930-1986), ed. Gregori Mir, Vol. II (Mallorca: Editorial Moll, 1998), pp. 318-319. Found at Laudator Temporis Actis.
"...I feel grateful to you for your translation which fortunately is not strictly literal and therefore nearer to truth..."
 |
| Tagore with Einstein |
Thus
In these quotes, Tagore states something similar to what we've seen in Walter Benjamin's writings. A distinction is made between the cultural context of the original and the translation. In this case, Tagore suggests that the translator does well to adapt even the symbols of the original to fit the understanding of the target audience. In this way, the symbols can be better understood.
Therefore, the literal meanings, the literal words, are only secondary to conveying the idea and the image - to conveying the truth that the a work portrays.
How It Matters
In Basudeb Chakraborti's article, "The Unrecognised Work of Tagore as a Translator", the author states that his self-translation of his Bengali play Rakta Karabi into the English Red Oleander, was a disaster - primarily because the target audience did not know the Bengali symbols and references.
Tagore's views make logical sense - how can a target audience understand the core of the work, if they don't understand the references or symbols? I found this in dubbing, too, when watching the Japanese comedy show Sergeant Frog. Japanese jokes or references would be completely lost on an average American, but the dubbing provides clear jokes for English speaking audiences.
Yet at the same time, there is a strong belief that adapting the source text too much also destroys its distinct personality (See my article on Gayatri Spiyak). One way to combat this is footnotes (which is a personal favorite), or notes at the back of the book. But in the end I suppose it's up to the translator to decide how to translate the truth of symbol.
No comments:
Post a Comment